» Articles » PMID: 31391057

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 1 - Using Qualitative Evidence Synthesis to Inform Guideline Scope and Develop Qualitative Findings Statements

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2019 Aug 9
PMID 31391057
Citations 30
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: WHO has recognised the need to ensure that guideline processes are transparent and evidence based, and that the resulting recommendations are relevant and applicable. Along with decision-making criteria that require findings from effectiveness reviews, WHO is increasingly using evidence derived from qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) to inform the values, acceptability, equity and feasibility implications of its recommendations. This is the first in a series of three papers examining the use of QES in developing clinical and health systems guidelines.

Methods: WHO convened a group of methodologists involved in developing recent (2010-2018) guidelines that were informed by 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. Our aim in this paper is to (1) describe and discuss how the findings of QES can inform the scope of a guideline and (2) develop findings for key guideline decision-making criteria.

Results: QES resulted in the addition of new outcomes that are directly relevant to service users, a stronger evidence base for decisions about how much effective interventions and related outcomes are valued by stakeholders in a range of contexts, and a more complete database of summary evidence for guideline panels to consider, linked to decisions about values, acceptability, feasibility and equity.

Conclusions: Rigorously conducted QES can be a powerful means of improving the relevance of guidelines, and of ensuring that the concerns of stakeholders, at all levels of the healthcare system and from a wide range of settings, are taken into account at all stages of the process.

Citing Articles

Using evidence from civil society in national and subnational health policy processes: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Gopinathan U, Peacocke E, Abankwah D, Aryeetey G, Glenton C, Khisa P Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025; 6():CD015810.

PMID: 39804111 PMC: 11187791. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015810.


Home visits for preterm/low birthweight infants in South Africa: Qualitative evidence synthesis.

Cooper S, Kallon I, Mabetha D, Brand A, Kredo T, Pillay S Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2024; 16(1).

PMID: 39641090 PMC: 7616882. DOI: 10.4102/phcfm.v16i1.4701.


Mapping frameworks for synthesizing qualitative evidence in health technology assessment.

Cardoso M, Marques R, Machado-Rugolo J, Thabane L, Puschel V, Weber S Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2024; 40(1):e53.

PMID: 39534917 PMC: 11579671. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462324000369.


The experiences and perspectives of abortion seekers who travel for care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Henderson J, Ramanadhan S, Kimport K, Foster A, Paynter R, Sheridan R Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024; 10:CD015565.

PMID: 39392115 PMC: 11467987. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015565.


Addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion in JBI qualitative systematic reviews: a methodological scoping review.

Evans C, Hassanein Z, Bains M, Bennett C, Bjerrum M, Edgley A JBI Evid Synth. 2024; 23(3):454-479.

PMID: 39224923 PMC: 11893006. DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00025.


References
1.
Benoot C, Hannes K, Bilsen J . The use of purposeful sampling in a qualitative evidence synthesis: A worked example on sexual adjustment to a cancer trajectory. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016; 16:21. PMC: 4757966. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-016-0114-6. View

2.
Lewin S, Glenton C, Lawrie T, Downe S, Finlayson K, Rosenbaum S . Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 2 - Using qualitative evidence synthesis findings to inform evidence-to-decision frameworks and recommendations. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019; 17(1):75. PMC: 6686513. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-019-0468-4. View

3.
Wieringa S, Dreesens D, Forland F, Hulshof C, Lukersmith S, Macbeth F . Different knowledge, different styles of reasoning: a challenge for guideline development. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2018; 23(3):87-91. PMC: 5969373. DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2017-110844. View

4.
Colvin C, Garside R, Wainwright M, Munthe-Kaas H, Glenton C, Bohren M . Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 4: how to assess coherence. Implement Sci. 2018; 13(Suppl 1):13. PMC: 5791039. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0691-8. View

5.
Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K . Realist review--a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005; 10 Suppl 1:21-34. DOI: 10.1258/1355819054308530. View