Use of Qualitative Research in World Health Organisation Guidelines: a Document Analysis

Overview

Journal Health Res Policy Syst

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Health Services
Public Health

Date 2024 Apr 4

PMID 38576035

Authors

Melissa Taylor

Paul Garner

Sandy Oliver

Nicola Desmond

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Guidelines depend on effect estimates, usually derived from randomised controlled trials, to inform their decisions. Qualitative research evidence may improve decisions made but where in the process and the methods to do this have not been so clearly established. We sought to describe and appraise how qualitative research has been used to inform World Heath Organization guidance since 2020.

Methods: We conducted a document analysis of WHO guidelines from 2020 to 2022. We purposely sampled guidelines on the topics of maternal and newborn health (MANH) and infectious diseases, as most of the qualitative synthesis to date has been conducted on these topics, likely representing the 'best case' scenario. We searched the in-built repository feature of the WHO website and used standardised search terms to identify qualitative reporting. Using deductive frameworks, we described how qualitative evidence was used to inform guidelines and appraised the standards of this use.

Results: Of the 29 guidelines, over half used qualitative research to help guide decisions (18/29). A total of 8 of these used qualitative research to inform the guideline scope, all 18 to inform recommendations, and 1 to inform implementation considerations. All guidelines drew on qualitative evidence syntheses (QES), and five further supplemented this with primary qualitative research. Qualitative findings reported in guidelines were typically descriptive, identifying people's perception of the benefits and harms of interventions or logistical barriers and facilitators to programme success. No guideline provided transparent reporting of how qualitative research was interpreted and weighed used alongside other evidence when informing decisions, and only one guideline reported the inclusion of qualitative methods experts on the panel. Only a few guidelines contextualised their recommendations by indicating which populations and settings qualitative findings could be applied.

Conclusions: Qualitative research frequently informed WHO guideline decisions particularly in the field of MANH. However, the process often lacked transparency. We identified unmet potential in informing implementation considerations and contextualisation of the recommendations. Use in these areas needs further methods development.

References

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

Carmona C, Baxter S, Carroll C . The conduct and reporting of qualitative evidence syntheses in health and social care guidelines: a content analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022; 22(1):267. PMC: 9554851. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-022-01743-1. View

Kayesa N, Shung-King M . The role of document analysis in health policy analysis studies in low and middle-income countries: Lessons for HPA researchers from a qualitative systematic review. Health Policy Open. 2023; 2:100024. PMC: 10297803. DOI: 10.1016/j.hpopen.2020.100024. View

Carmona C, Baxter S, Carroll C . Systematic review of the methodological literature for integrating qualitative evidence syntheses into health guideline development. Res Synth Methods. 2021; 12(4):491-505. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1483. View

Nordon C, Karcher H, Groenwold R, Ankarfeldt M, Pichler F, Chevrou-Severac H . The "Efficacy-Effectiveness Gap": Historical Background and Current Conceptualization. Value Health. 2016; 19(1):75-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.2938. View

Wang Y, Liang D, Lu C, Shi Y, Zhang J, Cao Y . An exploration of how developers use qualitative evidence: content analysis and critical appraisal of guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020; 20(1):160. PMC: 7302150. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-020-01041-8. View

Downe S, Finlayson K, Tuncalp O, Gulmezoglu A . Provision and uptake of routine antenatal services: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; 6:CD012392. PMC: 6564082. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012392.pub2. View

Sackett D, Rosenberg W, Gray J, Haynes R, Richardson W . Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996; 312(7023):71-2. PMC: 2349778. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71. View

Downe S, Finlayson K, Lawrie T, Lewin S, Glenton C, Rosenbaum S . Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 1 - Using qualitative evidence synthesis to inform guideline scope and develop qualitative findings statements. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019; 17(1):76. PMC: 6686511. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-019-0467-5. View

10.

Tan T, Stokes T, Shaw E . Use of qualitative research as evidence in the clinical guideline program of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2011; 7(3):169-72. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2009.00135.x. View

11.

Hamilton A, Finley E . Qualitative methods in implementation research: An introduction. Psychiatry Res. 2019; 280:112516. PMC: 7023962. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112516. View

12.

Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis J . Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017; 17(1):88. PMC: 5267473. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8. View

13.

Ford N, Thomas R, Grove J . Transparency: A central principle underpinning trustworthy guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 142:246-248. PMC: 8594247. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.025. View

14.

Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Rashidian A, Wainwright M . Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. Implement Sci. 2018; 13(Suppl 1):2. PMC: 5791040. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3. View

15.

Booth A, Moore G, Flemming K, Garside R, Rollins N, Tuncalp O . Taking account of context in systematic reviews and guidelines considering a complexity perspective. BMJ Glob Health. 2019; 4(Suppl 1):e000840. PMC: 6350703. DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000840. View

16.

Ramanadhan S, Revette A, Lee R, Aveling E . Pragmatic approaches to analyzing qualitative data for implementation science: an introduction. Implement Sci Commun. 2021; 2(1):70. PMC: 8243847. DOI: 10.1186/s43058-021-00174-1. View

17.

Gopinathan U, Buse K . How can WHO transform its approach to social determinants of health?. BMJ. 2022; 376:e066172. PMC: 9685518. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-066172. View

18.

Kearney M . Levels and applications of qualitative research evidence. Res Nurs Health. 2001; 24(2):145-53. DOI: 10.1002/nur.1017. View

19.

Lewin S, Glenton C . Are we entering a new era for qualitative research? Using qualitative evidence to support guidance and guideline development by the World Health Organization. Int J Equity Health. 2018; 17(1):126. PMC: 6151925. DOI: 10.1186/s12939-018-0841-x. View

20.

Glenton C, Lewin S, Lawrie T, Barreix M, Downe S, Finlayson K . Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 3 - Using qualitative evidence syntheses to develop implementation considerations and inform implementation processes. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019; 17(1):74. PMC: 6686245. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-019-0450-1. View