Carmona, C. orcid.org/0000-0001-9855-3575, Baxter, S. and Carroll, C. orcid.org/0000-0002-6361-6182 (2022) The conduct and reporting of qualitative evidence syntheses in health and social care guidelines: a content analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 22 (1). 267. ISSN 1471-2288
Abstract
Background:
This paper is part of a broader investigation into the ways in which health and social care guideline producers are using qualitative evidence syntheses (QESs) alongside more established methods of guideline development such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses of quantitative data. This study is a content analysis of QESs produced over a 5-year period by a leading provider of guidelines for the National Health Service in the UK (the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) to explore how closely they match a reporting framework for QES.
Methods:
Guidelines published or updated between Jan 2015 and Dec 2019 were identified via searches of the National Institute for Health and Care excellence (NICE) website. These guidelines were searched to identify any QES conducted during the development of the guideline. Data relating to the compliance of these syntheses against a reporting framework for QES (ENTREQ) were extracted and compiled, and descriptive statistics used to provide an analysis of the of QES conduct, reporting and use by this major international guideline producer.
Results:
QES contributed, in part, to 54 out of a total of 192 guidelines over the five-year period. Although methods for producing and reporting QES have changed substantially over the past decade, this study found that there has been little change in the number or quality of NICE QESs over time. The largest predictor of quality was the centre or team which undertook the synthesis. Analysis indicated that elements of review methods which were similar to those used in quantitative systematic reviews tended to be carried out well and mostly matched the criteria in the reporting framework, but review methods which were more specific to a QES tended to be carried out less well, with fewer examples of criteria in the reporting framework being achieved.
Conclusion:
The study suggests that use, conduct and reporting of optimal QES methods requires development, as over time the quality of reporting of QES both overall, and by specific centres, has not improved in spite of clearer reporting frameworks and important methodological developments. Further staff training in QES methods may be helpful for reviewers who are more familiar with conventional forms of systematic review if the highest standards of QES are to be achieved. There seems potential for greater use of evidence from qualitative research during guideline development.
Metadata
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
Authors/Creators: |
|
Copyright, Publisher and Additional Information: | © 2022 The Authors. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
Keywords: | Qualitative evidence synthesis; Reporting frameworks; Guideline development |
Dates: |
|
Institution: | The University of Sheffield |
Academic Units: | The University of Sheffield > Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health (Sheffield) > School of Health and Related Research (Sheffield) > ScHARR - Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research |
Depositing User: | Symplectic Sheffield |
Date Deposited: | 21 Oct 2022 09:13 |
Last Modified: | 21 Oct 2022 09:13 |
Status: | Published |
Publisher: | BMC |
Refereed: | Yes |
Identification Number: | 10.1186/s12874-022-01743-1 |
Open Archives Initiative ID (OAI ID): | oai:eprints.whiterose.ac.uk:192207 |