» Articles » PMID: 29384079

Applying GRADE-CERQual to Qualitative Evidence Synthesis Findings: Introduction to the Series

Overview
Journal Implement Sci
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Health Services
Date 2018 Feb 1
PMID 29384079
Citations 398
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The GRADE-CERQual ('Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research') approach provides guidance for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research (or qualitative evidence syntheses). The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. Confidence in the evidence from qualitative evidence syntheses is an assessment of the extent to which a review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. CERQual provides a systematic and transparent framework for assessing confidence in individual review findings, based on consideration of four components: (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data, and (4) relevance. A fifth component, dissemination (or publication) bias, may also be important and is being explored. As with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach for effectiveness evidence, CERQual suggests summarising evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative Summary of Qualitative Findings tables. These tables are designed to communicate the review findings and the CERQual assessment of confidence in each finding. This article is the first of a seven-part series providing guidance on how to apply the CERQual approach. In this paper, we describe the rationale and conceptual basis for CERQual, the aims of the approach, how the approach was developed, and its main components. We also outline the purpose and structure of this series and discuss the growing role for qualitative evidence in decision-making. Papers 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in this series discuss each CERQual component, including the rationale for including the component in the approach, how the component is conceptualised, and how it should be assessed. Paper 2 discusses how to make an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding and how to create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. The series is intended primarily for those undertaking qualitative evidence syntheses or using their findings in decision-making processes but is also relevant to guideline development agencies, primary qualitative researchers, and implementation scientists and practitioners.

Citing Articles

Dissemination strategies of clinical practice guidelines-mixed methods evidence synthesis protocol.

Nagraj S, Hafver T, Hohlfeld A, Effa E, Mabetha D, Kunje G Clin Public Health Guidel. 2025; 2(2):e70012.

PMID: 40070372 PMC: 7617474. DOI: 10.1002/gin2.70012.


Public health involvement in alcohol licensing decisions in the UK: a systematic review of qualitative studies.

Rogerson M, Blank L, Clowes M, Hock E, Goyder E BMJ Public Health. 2025; 2(2):e000953.

PMID: 40018589 PMC: 11816881. DOI: 10.1136/bmjph-2024-000953.


Barriers and enablers to pharmacist involvement in social prescribing: a protocol for a systematic review of qualitative studies.

Shankar R, Bundele A, Low J, Mukhopadhyay A BMJ Open. 2025; 15(2):e099022.

PMID: 40010831 PMC: 11865720. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-099022.


Perceptions, experiences, barriers, facilitators, learning outcomes, and modes of assessment of digital clinical placements for pre-registration physiotherapy students internationally: a systematic review protocol.

McConnell J, Rushton A, Noblet T, Pacey V, Mistry J, Lai J PLoS One. 2025; 20(2):e0319024.

PMID: 39977452 PMC: 11841889. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0319024.


Touch, communication and affect: a systematic review on the use of touch in healthcare professions.

Buono R, Nygren M, Bianchi-Berthouze N Syst Rev. 2025; 14(1):42.

PMID: 39953538 PMC: 11829577. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-025-02769-4.


References
1.
Bohren M, Hunter E, Munthe-Kaas H, Souza J, Vogel J, Gulmezoglu A . Facilitators and barriers to facility-based delivery in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Reprod Health. 2014; 11(1):71. PMC: 4247708. DOI: 10.1186/1742-4755-11-71. View

2.
Odendaal W, Goudge J, Griffiths F, Tomlinson M, Leon N, Daniels K . Healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences on using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 2015(11). PMC: 4966615. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011942. View

3.
Molyneux S, Atela M, Angwenyi V, Goodman C . Community accountability at peripheral health facilities: a review of the empirical literature and development of a conceptual framework. Health Policy Plan. 2012; 27(7):541-54. PMC: 3465752. DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czr083. View

4.
Toews I, Glenton C, Lewin S, Berg R, Noyes J, Booth A . Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey. PLoS One. 2016; 11(8):e0159290. PMC: 4972302. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159290. View

5.
Sandelowski M, Docherty S, Emden C . Focus on qualitative methods. Qualitative metasynthesis: issues and techniques. Res Nurs Health. 1997; 20(4):365-71. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1098-240x(199708)20:4<365::aid-nur9>3.0.co;2-e. View