The Value of Systematic Reviews of Qualitative Research in Developing Evidence-based Guidelines_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

 ZHAORui ^{1, #} ,  BAIZheng-gang ^{1, #} , HUANGChong-fei ¹ , FANJing-chun ² , JINYing-hui ³ , CHENHao ⁴ , ZENGXian-tao ⁵ , KWONGJoey Sum-wing ⁶

1. Evidence-based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University/Key Laboratory of Evidence-based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, China;
2. School of Public Health, Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou 730000, China;
3. School of Nursing, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine/Center for Evidenced-based Nursing, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin 300193, China;
4. The Second Clinical Medical College of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing 210046, China;
5. Center for Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Research, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan 442000, China;
6. Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China;

Corresponding author：

BAIZheng-gang, Email: baizhenggang@126.com

Keywords：

Qualitative research; Systematic review; Evidence-based guideline; Evidence-informed decision making

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.20160131

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

A well-conducted evidence-based guideline not only considers the efficiency and the cost of the recommended intervention, but also the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention during implementation. Systematic reviews of qualitative research aim to provide qualitative evidence such as the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. In developing evidence-based guidelines, qualitative evidence helps to:(1) Define the scope of guideline; (2) Assess the acceptability of interventions; (3) Assess the feasibility of interventions; (4) Identify considerations when implementing guidelines. Systematic reviews provide the fundamental evidence required to develop robust and trustworthy guidelines. The CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach aims to grade the evidence from systematic reviews of qualitative research. After critically and scientifically appraising by CERQual, the acceptance and feasibility of an intervention are given different grading, which is the critical process of developing evidence-based guidelines. This paper will demonstrate the value of systematic reviews of qualitative research in developing evidence-based guidelines and how to implement recommendations from qualitative evidence.

Citation： ZHAORui, BAIZheng-gang, HUANGChong-fei, FANJing-chun, JINYing-hui, CHENHao, ZENGXian-tao, KWONGJoey Sum-wing. The Value of Systematic Reviews of Qualitative Research in Developing Evidence-based Guidelines. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2016, 16(7): 855-859. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20160131 Copy

1.	王家良.循证医学北京:人民卫生出版社, 2010.
2.	于河, 刘建平.定性研究方法及其在医学领域内的应用.循证医学, 2008, 8(5):292-296, 300.
3.	陈向明.质性研究方法与社会科学研究.北京:教育科学出版社, 2000:12.
4.	Neuman WL. Social research methods:Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Boston:Allyn and Bacon, 2005.
5.	刘建平.循证中医药定性研究方法学.北京:人民卫生出版社, 2009.
6.	Noyes J, Popay J, Pearson A, et al. Chapter 20:Qualitative research and Cochrane reviews. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 2008:571.
7.	黄崇斐, 拜争刚, 吴淑婷, 等.定性系统评价的撰写方法介绍.中国循证医学杂志, 2015, 15(9):1106-1111.
8.	WHO. Handbook for Guideline Development.:World Health Organization, Geneva, 2012.
9.	Boruch R, Rui N. From randomized controlled trials to evidence grading schemes:current state of evidence-based practice in social sciences. J Evid Based Med, 2008, 1(1):41-49.
10.	Hannes K, Booth A, Harris J, et al. Celebrating methodological challenges and changes:reflecting on the emergence and importance of the role of qualitative evidence in Cochrane reviews. Syst Rev, 2013, 2, 84.
11.	Bohren MA, Hunter EC, Munthe-Kaas HM, et al. Facilitators and barriers to facility-based delivery in low-and middle-income countries:a qualitative evidence synthesis. Reprod Health, 2014, 11(1):71.
12.	Colvin CJ, de Heer J, Winterton L, et al. A systematic review of qualitative evidence on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of task-shifting in midwifery services. Midwifery, 2013, 29(10):1211-1221.
13.	Glenton C, Colvin CJ, Carlsen B, et al. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of lay health worker programmes to improve access to maternal and child health:qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2013, (10):CD1010414.
14.	World Health Organization. WHO Recommendations:Optimizing Health Worker Roles to Improve Access to Key Maternal and Newborn Health Interventions Through Task Shifting. Geneva:World Health Organization, 2012.
15.	Fretheim A, Munabi-Babigumira S, Oxman AD, et al. SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed policymaking in health 6:Using research evidence to address how an option will be implemented. Health Res Policy Syst, 2009, 7 Suppl 1:S6.
16.	Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group website, Available at:http://cqim.cochrane.org/.
17.	袁浩斌.循证护理中质性研究的Meta-整合方法.护理学杂志:综合版, 2012, 27(11):67-69.
18.	孙皓, 时景璞.循证医学中PICO模型的扩展及其在定性研究中的应用.中国循证医学杂志, 2014, 14(5):505-508.
19.	拜争刚, 刘少堃, 黄崇斐, 等.定性系统评价证据分级工具——CERQual简介.中国循证医学杂志, 2015, 15 (12):1465-1270.
20.	Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, et al. Using Qualitative Evidence in Decision Making for Health and Social Interventions:An Approach to Assess Confidence in Findings from Qualitative Evidence Syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Med, 2015, 12(10):e1001895.
21.	DECIDE (Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence) website. Available at:http://www.decide-collaboration.eu/.
22.	Polus S, Lewin S, Glenton C, et al. Optimizing the delivery of contraceptives in low-and middle-income countries through task shifting:a systematic review of effectiveness and safety. Reprod Health, 2015, 12:27.

1. 王家良.循证医学北京:人民卫生出版社, 2010.
2. 于河, 刘建平.定性研究方法及其在医学领域内的应用.循证医学, 2008, 8(5):292-296, 300.
3. 陈向明.质性研究方法与社会科学研究.北京:教育科学出版社, 2000:12.
4. Neuman WL. Social research methods:Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Boston:Allyn and Bacon, 2005.
5. 刘建平.循证中医药定性研究方法学.北京:人民卫生出版社, 2009.
6. Noyes J, Popay J, Pearson A, et al. Chapter 20:Qualitative research and Cochrane reviews. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 2008:571.
7. 黄崇斐, 拜争刚, 吴淑婷, 等.定性系统评价的撰写方法介绍.中国循证医学杂志, 2015, 15(9):1106-1111.
8. WHO. Handbook for Guideline Development.:World Health Organization, Geneva, 2012.
9. Boruch R, Rui N. From randomized controlled trials to evidence grading schemes:current state of evidence-based practice in social sciences. J Evid Based Med, 2008, 1(1):41-49.
10. Hannes K, Booth A, Harris J, et al. Celebrating methodological challenges and changes:reflecting on the emergence and importance of the role of qualitative evidence in Cochrane reviews. Syst Rev, 2013, 2, 84.
11. Bohren MA, Hunter EC, Munthe-Kaas HM, et al. Facilitators and barriers to facility-based delivery in low-and middle-income countries:a qualitative evidence synthesis. Reprod Health, 2014, 11(1):71.
12. Colvin CJ, de Heer J, Winterton L, et al. A systematic review of qualitative evidence on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of task-shifting in midwifery services. Midwifery, 2013, 29(10):1211-1221.
13. Glenton C, Colvin CJ, Carlsen B, et al. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of lay health worker programmes to improve access to maternal and child health:qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2013, (10):CD1010414.
14. World Health Organization. WHO Recommendations:Optimizing Health Worker Roles to Improve Access to Key Maternal and Newborn Health Interventions Through Task Shifting. Geneva:World Health Organization, 2012.
15. Fretheim A, Munabi-Babigumira S, Oxman AD, et al. SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed policymaking in health 6:Using research evidence to address how an option will be implemented. Health Res Policy Syst, 2009, 7 Suppl 1:S6.
16. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group website, Available at:http://cqim.cochrane.org/.
17. 袁浩斌.循证护理中质性研究的Meta-整合方法.护理学杂志:综合版, 2012, 27(11):67-69.
18. 孙皓, 时景璞.循证医学中PICO模型的扩展及其在定性研究中的应用.中国循证医学杂志, 2014, 14(5):505-508.
19. 拜争刚, 刘少堃, 黄崇斐, 等.定性系统评价证据分级工具——CERQual简介.中国循证医学杂志, 2015, 15 (12):1465-1270.
20. Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, et al. Using Qualitative Evidence in Decision Making for Health and Social Interventions:An Approach to Assess Confidence in Findings from Qualitative Evidence Syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Med, 2015, 12(10):e1001895.
21. DECIDE (Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence) website. Available at:http://www.decide-collaboration.eu/.
22. Polus S, Lewin S, Glenton C, et al. Optimizing the delivery of contraceptives in low-and middle-income countries through task shifting:a systematic review of effectiveness and safety. Reprod Health, 2015, 12:27.

Previous Article
Methods to Combine Standard Deviations of Different Subgroups in Meta-analysis
Next Article
Brief Introduction of the CONSORT Extension for Reporting N-of-1 Trials (CENT 2015)

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

The Value of Systematic Reviews of Qualitative Research in Developing Evidence-based Guidelines

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content