Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 3 - Using qualitative evidence syntheses to develop implementation considerations and inform implementation processes.
Abortion, Induced
/ standards
Communication
Decision Making
Evidence-Based Medicine
/ organization & administration
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Health Services Research
/ organization & administration
Humans
Maternal-Child Health Services
/ standards
Practice Guidelines as Topic
/ standards
Prenatal Care
/ standards
Professional Role
Qualitative Research
Systematic Reviews as Topic
Vaccination
/ methods
World Health Organization
/ organization & administration
Evidence-to-decision framework
GRADE
GRADE-CERQual
Guideline development
Guideline implementation
QES
Qualitative evidence synthesis/syntheses
Qualitative methods
Qualitative systematic review
WHO guidelines
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
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
74Subventions
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