Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 3 - Using qualitative evidence syntheses to develop implementation considerations and inform implementation processes.


Journal

Health research policy and systems
ISSN: 1478-4505
Titre abrégé: Health Res Policy Syst
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170481

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 Aug 2019
Historique:
received: 16 01 2019
accepted: 04 04 2019
entrez: 9 8 2019
pubmed: 9 8 2019
medline: 19 2 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

This is the third in a series of three papers describing the use of qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) to inform the development of clinical and health systems guidelines. WHO has recognised the need to improve its guideline methodology to ensure that decision-making processes are transparent and evidence based, and that the resulting recommendations are relevant and applicable to end users. In addition to the standard data on effectiveness, WHO guidelines increasingly use evidence derived from QES to provide information on acceptability and feasibility and to develop important implementation considerations. WHO convened a group drawn from the technical teams involved in formulating 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. As members of WHO guideline technical teams, our aim in this paper is to explore how we have used findings from QES to develop implementation considerations for these guidelines. For each guideline, in addition to using systematic reviews of effectiveness, the technical teams used QES to gather evidence of the acceptability and feasibility of interventions and, in some cases, equity issues and the value people place on different outcomes. This evidence was synthesised using standardised processes. The teams then used the QES to identify implementation considerations combined with other sources of information and input from experts. QES were useful sources of information for implementation considerations. However, several issues for further development remain, including whether researchers should use existing health systems frameworks when developing implementation considerations; whether researchers should take confidence in the evidence into account when developing implementation considerations; whether qualitative evidence that reveals implementation challenges should lead guideline panels to make conditional recommendations or only point to implementation considerations; and whether guideline users find it helpful to have challenges pointed out to them or whether they also need solutions. Finally, we need to explore how QES findings can be incorporated into derivative products to aid implementation.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
This is the third in a series of three papers describing the use of qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) to inform the development of clinical and health systems guidelines. WHO has recognised the need to improve its guideline methodology to ensure that decision-making processes are transparent and evidence based, and that the resulting recommendations are relevant and applicable to end users. In addition to the standard data on effectiveness, WHO guidelines increasingly use evidence derived from QES to provide information on acceptability and feasibility and to develop important implementation considerations.
METHODS METHODS
WHO convened a group drawn from the technical teams involved in formulating 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. As members of WHO guideline technical teams, our aim in this paper is to explore how we have used findings from QES to develop implementation considerations for these guidelines.
RESULTS RESULTS
For each guideline, in addition to using systematic reviews of effectiveness, the technical teams used QES to gather evidence of the acceptability and feasibility of interventions and, in some cases, equity issues and the value people place on different outcomes. This evidence was synthesised using standardised processes. The teams then used the QES to identify implementation considerations combined with other sources of information and input from experts.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
QES were useful sources of information for implementation considerations. However, several issues for further development remain, including whether researchers should use existing health systems frameworks when developing implementation considerations; whether researchers should take confidence in the evidence into account when developing implementation considerations; whether qualitative evidence that reveals implementation challenges should lead guideline panels to make conditional recommendations or only point to implementation considerations; and whether guideline users find it helpful to have challenges pointed out to them or whether they also need solutions. Finally, we need to explore how QES findings can be incorporated into derivative products to aid implementation.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31391071
doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0450-1
pii: 10.1186/s12961-019-0450-1
pmc: PMC6686245
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

74

Subventions

Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International

Références

Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Aug 8;17(1):76
pubmed: 31391057
BJOG. 2018 Jul;125(8):932-942
pubmed: 29117644
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 17;13(4):e0194906
pubmed: 29664907
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 May 29;16(1):45
pubmed: 29843743
BMC Public Health. 2017 Sep 21;17(1):730
pubmed: 28934942
Implement Sci. 2018 May 29;13(1):72
pubmed: 29843737
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 07;2:CD011787
pubmed: 28169420
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 15;4:CD010412
pubmed: 30982950
BMJ. 2016 Jun 28;353:i2016
pubmed: 27353417
Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Aug 8;17(1):75
pubmed: 31391119
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Nov;2015(11):
pubmed: 27478408
Implement Sci. 2016 Jul 18;11:98
pubmed: 27430879
Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):2
pubmed: 29384079
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Jun;67(6):629-34
pubmed: 24388966
Implement Sci. 2013 Mar 23;8:35
pubmed: 23522377
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 May;97:35-38
pubmed: 29242094
Trop Med Int Health. 2014 Dec;19(12):1437-56
pubmed: 25255908
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Oct 08;(10):CD010414
pubmed: 24101553
SSM Popul Health. 2016 Dec;2:640-655
pubmed: 28345016
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jun 12;6:CD012392
pubmed: 31194903
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;70:111-22
pubmed: 26399903

Auteurs

Claire Glenton (C)

Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.

Simon Lewin (S)

Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa.

Theresa A Lawrie (TA)

Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd., Bath, United Kingdom. tess@e-bmc.co.uk.

María Barreix (M)

Department 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.

Soo Downe (S)

University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom.

Kenneth W Finlayson (KW)

University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom.

Tigest Tamrat (T)

Department 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.

Sarah Rosenbaum (S)

Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.

Özge Tunçalp (Ö)

Department 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.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH