Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31391119›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2019

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 2 - Using qualitative evidence synthesis findings to inform evidence-to-decision frameworks and recommendations.

Simon Lewin, Claire Glenton, Theresa A Lawrie, Soo Downe, Kenneth W Finlayson, Sarah Rosenbaum, María Barreix, Özge Tunçalp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Perspectives into the experience of successful, substantial long-term weight-loss maintenance: a systematic review.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Home visits for preterm/low birthweight infants in South Africa: Qualitative evidence synthesis.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2024
    Article
  16. Mapping frameworks for synthesizing qualitative evidence in health technology assessment.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Simon LewinNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Claire GlentonNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Theresa A LawrieEvidence-based Medicine Consultancy, Bath, United Kingdom. tess@e-bmc.co.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5500-8590
Soo DowneUniversity of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom.
Kenneth W FinlaysonUniversity of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom.
Sarah RosenbaumNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
María BarreixDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research including UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Özge TunçalpDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research including UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWHO has recognised the need to improve its guideline methodology to ensure that guideline decision-making processes are transparent and evidence based, and that the resulting recommendations are relevant and applicable. To help achieve this, WHO guidelines now typically enhance intervention effectiveness data with evidence on a wider range of decision-making criteria, including how stakeholders value different outcomes, equity, gender and human rights impacts, and the acceptability and feasibility of interventions. Qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are increasingly used to provide evidence on this wider range of issues. In this paper, we describe and discuss how to use the findings from QES to populate decision-making criteria in evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks. This is the second in a series of three papers that examines the use of QES in developing clinical and health system guidelines.

methodsWHO convened a writing group drawn from the technical teams involved in its recent (2010-2018) guidelines employing QES. Using a pragmatic and iterative approach that included feedback from WHO staff and other stakeholders, the group reflected on, discussed and identified key methods and research implications from designing QES and using the resulting findings in guideline development.

resultsWe describe a step-wise approach to populating EtD frameworks with QES findings. This involves allocating findings to the different EtD criteria (how stakeholders value different outcomes, equity, acceptability and feasibility, etc.), weaving the findings into a short narrative relevant to each criterion, and inserting this summary narrative into the corresponding 'research evidence' sections of the EtD. We also identify areas for further methodological research, including how best to summarise and present qualitative data to groups developing guidelines, how these groups draw on different types of evidence in their decisions, and the extent to which our experiences are relevant to decision-making processes in fields other than health.

conclusionsThis paper shows the value of incorporating QES within a guideline development process, and the roles that qualitative evidence can play in integrating the views and experiences of relevant stakeholders, including groups who may not be otherwise represented in the decision-making process.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineHealth Services ResearchPractice Guidelines as TopicQualitative ResearchWorld Health OrganizationCommunicationDecision MakingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaternal-Child Health ServicesPrenatal CareProfessional RoleSystematic Reviews as TopicVaccinationevidence-to-decisionGRADEGRADE-CERQualguideline developmentQESqualitative evidence synthesisqualitative methodsqualitative reviewWHO guidelines

Identifiers

PMID31391119
PMCPMC6686513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.