Literature DB >> 29403107

Qualitative evidence to improve guidelines and health decision-making.

Etienne V Langlois1, Özge Tunçalp2, Susan L Norris3, Ian Askew2, Abdul Ghaffar1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29403107      PMCID: PMC5791783          DOI: 10.2471/BLT.17.206540

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bull World Health Organ        ISSN: 0042-9686            Impact factor:   9.408


× No keyword cloud information.
As governments are developing schemes for universal health coverage (UHC) and progressing towards the sustainable development goals (SDGs), they need relevant and context-sensitive evidence to support different policies and interventions. Decision-makers are increasingly using qualitative evidence to understand various socioeconomic contexts, health systems and communities. This type of evidence is useful to assess the needs, values, perceptions and experiences of stakeholders, including policymakers, providers, communities and patients, and is thus crucial for complex health decision-making. For instance, during the development of the World Health Organization (WHO) Recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience, qualitative evidence was used to understand what women want, need and value during pregnancy and antenatal care. The findings of two qualitative evidence syntheses helped to identify factors that influence access to antenatal care for women and provision of good-quality services by health-care providers. The findings also contributed to informing the acceptability of the recommendations and their implementation considerations. Qualitative evidence syntheses, which combine and analyse evidence from individual qualitative studies, have emerged as a key approach to inform guideline development and address implementation considerations in diverse country settings and complex health systems. By extending beyond the evidence on benefits and harms provided by effectiveness reviews, qualitative evidence syntheses clarify the interplay between stakeholders, health systems and context. They are fundamental to understand the values and preferences of end-users, to assess the acceptability and feasibility of health and social interventions, and to explore the effects of different interventions on equity. WHO, as a producer of clinical, public health and health system guidelines, increasingly uses qualitative evidence syntheses to ensure that its recommendations reflect the needs of its audience and the varied contexts where recommended interventions will be implemented. Beyond global guidance, qualitative evidence is invaluable for national and local decision-makers and practitioners to understand factors influencing the implementation and scale-up of health policies and programmes. For instance, policy-makers require evidence on factors that influence vaccination coverage, satisfaction and retention of health-care workers or quality of care in health facilities. Qualitative data have proven essential in planning, developing and implementing health policies and interventions, including in low- and middle-income countries, for example to prevent and treat malaria during pregnancy or to promote respectful maternity care in country programmes. Qualitative evidence also helps policy-makers and programme managers to make decisions about how to adapt a given WHO guideline and how to prioritize specific recommendations for implementation. Yet, despite the relevance of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses, there is limited guidance on how to assess and use this evidence in policy and practice. To address this need, the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research and the WHO Department of Reproductive Health and Research have supported the development of a new approach called GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the evidence from reviews of qualitative research). The GRADE-CERQual approach is used to describe how much confidence decision-makers and other users can place in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses by transparently assessing methodological limitations, coherence, adequacy and relevance., The approach is similar to GRADE, which is widely used to assess how much confidence to place in review findings on the effectiveness of health interventions. New guidance on how to apply the GRADE-CERQual approach is now available as a special series of articles to support stakeholders conducting reviews of qualitative research and using their findings to inform decision-making. The articles explain the approach step-by-step and why and how the approach was developed. This guidance also provides information on how to make an overall assessment of confidence and how to present key findings and confidence assessments. The GRADE-CERQual approach was developed as a global public good to advance research methods and promote the uptake of qualitative findings in decision-making within and beyond the health sector. This guidance is also aligned with a global movement towards the generation and use of a wide array of evidence in policy-making., Finally, this approach is important to better understand complex policies and programmes across contexts and to inform system-wide interventions relevant to UHC and the SDGs. As such, WHO aims to innovate and test methods to improve the development, adaptation and use of its guidelines, and to support countries towards greater use of evidence in health decision-making.
  4 in total

Review 1.  Social and cultural factors affecting uptake of interventions for malaria in pregnancy in Africa: a systematic review of the qualitative research.

Authors:  Christopher Pell; Lianne Straus; Erin V W Andrew; Arantza Meñaca; Robert Pool
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-07-20       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 2.  The Mistreatment of Women during Childbirth in Health Facilities Globally: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.

Authors:  Meghan A Bohren; Joshua P Vogel; Erin C Hunter; Olha Lutsiv; Suprita K Makh; João Paulo Souza; Carolina Aguiar; Fernando Saraiva Coneglian; Alex Luíz Araújo Diniz; Özge Tunçalp; Dena Javadi; Olufemi T Oladapo; Rajat Khosla; Michelle J Hindin; A Metin Gülmezoglu
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2015-06-30       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 3.  What matters to women: a systematic scoping review to identify the processes and outcomes of antenatal care provision that are important to healthy pregnant women.

Authors:  S Downe; K Finlayson; Ӧ Tunçalp; A Metin Gülmezoglu
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2015-12-24       Impact factor: 6.531

4.  Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual).

Authors:  Simon Lewin; Claire Glenton; Heather Munthe-Kaas; Benedicte Carlsen; Christopher J Colvin; Metin Gülmezoglu; Jane Noyes; Andrew Booth; Ruth Garside; Arash Rashidian
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2015-10-27       Impact factor: 11.069

  4 in total
  17 in total

Review 1.  Elements of integrated care approaches for older people: a review of reviews.

Authors:  Andrew M Briggs; Pim P Valentijn; Jotheeswaran A Thiyagarajan; Islene Araujo de Carvalho
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-04-07       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 2.  Implementing models of care for musculoskeletal conditions in health systems to support value-based care.

Authors:  Robyn Speerin; Christopher Needs; Jason Chua; Linda J Woodhouse; Margareta Nordin; Rhona McGlasson; Andrew M Briggs
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2020-07-25       Impact factor: 4.098

3.  Factors affecting the successful implementation of Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) in low- and middle-income countries.

Authors:  Suleiman E Mshelia; Chris Blackmore; Rachel Archer; Andrew Booth
Journal:  J Glob Health       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 4.413

4.  Developing methods for the overarching synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence: The interweave synthesis approach.

Authors:  Jo Thompson Coon; Ruth Gwernan-Jones; Ruth Garside; Michael Nunns; Liz Shaw; G J Melendez-Torres; Darren Moore
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2019-12-13       Impact factor: 5.273

5.  Institutionalising an evidence-informed approach to guideline development: progress and challenges at the World Health Organization.

Authors:  Unni Gopinathan; Steven J Hoffman
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2018-09-08

6.  Fostering access to and use of contextualised knowledge to support health policy-making: lessons from the Policy Information Platform in Nigeria.

Authors:  Chigozie Jesse Uneke; Etienne V Langlois; Henry C Uro-Chukwu; Jeremiah Chukwu; Abdul Ghaffar
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2019-04-08

7.  Taking a complexity perspective when developing public health guidelines.

Authors:  Anayda Portela; Özge Tunçalp; Susan L Norris
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 9.408

8.  Social capital and health: A systematic review of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Annahita Ehsan; Hannah Sophie Klaas; Alexander Bastianen; Dario Spini
Journal:  SSM Popul Health       Date:  2019-06-07

9.  Perspectives of people with aphasia post-stroke towards personal recovery and living successfully: A systematic review and thematic synthesis.

Authors:  Molly Manning; Anne MacFarlane; Anne Hickey; Sue Franklin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-22       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Formulating questions to explore complex interventions within qualitative evidence synthesis.

Authors:  Andrew Booth; Jane Noyes; Kate Flemming; Graham Moore; Özge Tunçalp; Elham Shakibazadeh
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2019-01-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.