Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42464417›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2026

Understanding the role of qualitative evidence synthesis in health and social care guideline development: perspectives from guideline committee members and technical staff in a leading UK producer of health and social care guidelines.

Chris Carmona, Christopher Carroll, Susan Baxter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Chris CarmonaUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9855-3575
Christopher CarrollUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. c.carroll@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6361-6182
Susan BaxterIndependent, Sheffield, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6034-5495

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper explores the perceptions and experiences of guideline committee members and technical staff at the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) regarding the use of qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) in the guideline development process. While QES has the potential to enrich guideline development with insights into service user experiences, implementation contexts, and social determinants of health, its integration into the process remains inconsistent. Drawing on 12 semi-structured interviews conducted with members from clinical, public health, and social care committees, and NICE technical staff, this qualitative study aimed to identify factors influencing the committees' use of QES in making guideline recommendations. Detailed analysis of the data identified three recurring themes: (1) trust in the credibility and robustness of QES; (2) challenges in the presentation and comprehension of QES; and (3) perceived value and limitations of QES in decision-making. Participants described uncertainty about qualitative methodologies, a reliance on the quantitative hierarchy of evidence, and variability in the quality and clarity of QES reporting. Despite these concerns, many saw QES as vital in amplifying service user voices and supporting lay-member engagement. The findings underscore the need for improved methodological transparency, clearer integration of qualitative and quantitative evidence, and capacity building in QES methods. This study contributes to the literature on evidence-informed policy and practice, highlighting key challenges and offering practical recommendations for enhancing the role of QES in guideline development.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicHumansQualitative ResearchUnited KingdomEvidence-based healthcareHealth and social care guidelinesQualitative evidence synthesis

Identifiers

PMID42464417
PMCPMC13656461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.