Search

Aim Emergent infectious diseases often lack medical treatment or preventive vaccines, thus requiring non-pharmaceutical interventions such as quarantine to reduce disease transmission. Quarantine, defined as the separation and restriction of movement of healthy people who have potentially been exposed to the disease, remains contentious especially when the risks and benefits are not fully discussed and not effectively communicated to the people by the organizations who impose this public health measure. Subject and methods A qualitative evidence synthesis was conducted to examine the phenomenon of adherence to quarantine focused on the following questions: What strategies affect adherence to quarantine? What are the barriers and facilitators to quarantine acceptance? What benefits and harms of quarantine have been described or measured? Results The evidence synthesis produced 18 findings assessed with high confidence. The findings were used to construct a conceptual framework for inter- and within-organization coordination and public communication that includes the following topics for consideration: desired orientation for implementation; population demographics; perceptions of messages; prior acceptance of quarantine; likelihood of impacts of quarantine; perceptions of health infrastructure; and perceptions of policy importance. Conclusion The findings and conceptual framework can guide development of effective non-pharmaceutical interventions and as such have direct relevance to public health policy and decision-making for intervening in emergent infectious diseases outbreak such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Background Co-production of research into public health services has yet to demonstrate tangible benefits. Few studies have reported the impact of co-production on research outcomes. The previous studies of organ donation have identified challenges in engaging with public organizations responsible, gaining ethical approval for sensitive studies with the recently bereaved and difficulty in recruiting bereaved family members who were approached about organ donation. Objective To address these challenges, we designed the first large co-productive observational study to evaluate implementation of a new system of organ donation in Wales. This paper outlines the co-productive strategies that were designed to overcome known methodological challenges and reports what impact they had on resolving these challenges. Design Two-year co-produced study with multiple stakeholders with the specific intention of maximizing engagement with the National Health Service arm in Wales responsible for organ donation, and recruitment of bereaved family members whose perspectives are essential but commonly absent from studies. Setting and participants NHS Blood and Transplant, Welsh Government and multiple patient and public representatives who served as co-productive partners with the research team. Results Co-productive strategies enabled a smooth passage through four different ethics processes within the 10-week time frame, family member recruitment targets to be surpassed, sharing of routinely collected data on 100% of potential organ donor cases and development of further research capacity and capability in a critically under researched area. Discussion and conclusion Although expensive and time consuming, co-production was effective and added value to research processes and study outcomes.

The World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned systematic reviews to assist with the development of new emergency risk communication guidelines that will impact responses and distribution of resources at all levels. This mixed-method evidence synthesis, guided by Cochrane principles and methods, examined the extant research in countries throughout the world, published from 2003 to 2016, related to the best practices to engage communities in preparing for and responding to emergency events with public health implications. Although few studies directly examined which strategies or tactics effectively engage public participation, many studies reinforced the importance of community participation. The findings support the perspective that emergency events are communicatively understood by all publics and that they benefit from emergency risk communication before, during, and after such events, especially when grounded in local contexts. Although the importance of local context limits the generalizability of risk communication, it is important to continue studying strategies and tactics to cultivate participation among all stakeholders.

Background It is not known which attributes of care are valued the most by those who experience hospice services. Such knowledge is integral to service development as it facilitates opportunities for continuous improvement of hospice care provision. The objectives of this mixed-studies systematic review were to explore patients’ and their family carer views and experiences, to determine what they valued about adult hospice care in the UK. Methods ASSIA, PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched from inception, up until March 2017 to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies. Four additional searching techniques supplemented the main search and grey literature was included. A three-stage mixed-method systematic review was conducted with a sequential exploratory design. Thematic synthesis was used with qualitative data, followed by a narrative summary of the quantitative data. The qualitative and quantitative syntheses were then juxtaposed within a matrix to produce an overarching synthesis. Results Thirty-four studies highlighted that what patients and carers valued was generally context specific and stemmed from an amalgamation of hospice service components, which both individually and collectively contributed to improvements in quality of life. When the syntheses of qualitative and quantitative studies were viewed in isolation, the value placed on services remained relatively consistent, with some discrepancies evident in service availability. These were commonly associated with geographical variations, as well as differences in service models and timeframes. Through an overarching synthesis of the qualitative and quantitative evidence, however, notable variations and a more nuanced account of what people valued and why were more prominent, specifically in relation to a lack of social support for carers, disparate access to essential services, the underrepresentation of patients with a non-cancer diagnosis, and the dissatisfaction with the range of services provided. Conclusion Review findings strengthen the existing evidence base and illuminates the underpinning elements of hospice care most valued by patients and their families. With large disparities in the availability of services, however, the underrepresentation of patients with non-malignant diseases and the limited evidence base demonstrating the adequate addressment of the social needs of carers, there continues to be considerable gaps that warrants further research. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12904-019-0401-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In an attempt to improve organ donation rates, some countries are considering moving from “opt‐in” systems where citizens must express their willingness to be an organ donor, to “opt‐out” systems where consent is presumed unless individuals have expressed their wishes otherwise, by, for example, joining an “opt‐out” register. In Wales—a part of the United Kingdom—the devolved government recently legislated for an “opt‐out” system. For the change to be effective, a public awareness campaign was critical to the policy's success. Using quantitative and qualitative content analysis, we explored media coverage of the change to better understand the relationship between the state, policy actors, media and the public when such policy changes take place. Our findings illustrate how a state communication campaign can effectively set the media agenda within which we saw a degree of interdependency created with the state using the media to promote policy, and the media relying on the state for credible information. Yet we also found that the media is not uncritical and observed how it uses its autonomy to influence policy setting. Over the period of study, we found that a change in tone and view towards deemed consent organ donation has taken place in the media. However, while this may influence or reflect public attitudes, it is yet to be seen whether the media campaign translates into behavioural change that will result in increases in organ donations.

The systematic review examined the phenomenon of trust during public health emergency events. The literature reviewed was field studies done with people directly affected or likely to be affected by such events and included quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method, and case study primary studies in English (N = 38) as well as Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish (all non-English N = 30). Studies were mostly from high- and middle-income countries, and the event most covered was infectious disease. Findings from individual studies were first synthesized within methods and evaluated for certainty/confidence, and then synthesized across methods. The final set of 11 findings synthesized across methods identified a set of activities for enhancing trust and showed that it is a multi-faceted and dynamic concept.

Aim\ud\udTo report a protocol for a qualitative study to better understand the key factors that influence decision making about pregnancy from women's perspectives and to use these data to develop a theoretical model for shared decision-making tools for the multiple stakeholders.\udDesign\ud\udMixed-method design using online surveys (with validated components) and purposively sampled follow-up semi structured interviews.\udMethods\ud\udFunded from September 2020 for 12 months. Online surveys of adult women (aged 18–50) identified via all Wales kidney database (n ≥ 500), additional recruitment through multidisciplinary healthcare professionals, relevant third sector organizations and social media. Follow-up in-depth qualitative interviews with n = 30 women. Linear regression models to identify associations between shared decision-making preferences and clinical and psychosocial variables. Qualitative interviews will use a visual timeline task to empower women in taking control over their narratives. Qualitative data will be fully transcribed and analysed thematically, based around a chronological and theoretical (theoretical domains framework) structure that maps out key challenges and opportunities for improved decision support in the care pathway. Visual timelines will be used during stakeholder consultation activities, to enable us to co-create a map of current support, gaps in provision, and opportunities for interventions. Quantitative data will be analysed descriptively to characterize our cohort. We will assemble a multidisciplinary shared decision-making intervention development group and provide ongoing stakeholder consultation activities with patient and public representatives.\udDiscussion\ud\udOutcomes will support new learning into; the ways women's knowledge of kidney disease may affect family planning and pregnancy, their needs in terms of psychological and social support, and how they weigh up the pros and cons of starting a family.\udImpact\ud\udEvidence will inform the design of new shared decision-making tools to better support women with the complex and often emotional decisions about having children while living with kidney disease.

Background The number of young adults with complex health-care needs due to life-limiting conditions/complex physical disability has risen significantly over the last 15 years, as more children now survive into adulthood. The transition from children to adult services may disrupt provision of essential respite/short break care for this vulnerable population, but the impact on young adults, families and providers is unclear. Aim To review the evidence on respite care provision for young adults (aged 18–40 years) with complex health-care needs, provide an evidence gap analysis and develop a conceptual framework for respite care. Design A two-stage mixed-methods systematic review, including a knowledge map of respite care and an evidence review of policy, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and experience. Data sources Electronic databases and grey/unpublished literature were searched from 2002 to September 2019. The databases searched included Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Health Management Information Consortium, PROSPERO, Turning Research into Practice, COnNECT+, British Nursing Index, Web of Science, Social Care Online, the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library, Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care specialist register, databases on The Cochrane Library and international clinical trials registers. Additional sources were searched using the CLUSTER (Citations, Lead authors, Unpublished materials, Scholar search, Theories, Early examples, Related projects) approach and an international ‘call for evidence’. Methods and analysis Multiple independent reviewers used the SPICE (Setting, Perspective, Intervention/phenomenon of interest, Comparison, Evaluation) framework to select and extract evidence for each stage, verified by a third reviewer. Study/source characteristics and outcomes were extracted. Study quality was assessed using relevant tools. Qualitative evidence was synthesised using a framework approach and UK policy was synthesised using documentary content analysis. GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) was used to assess confidence in the evidence. Logic models developed for each type of respite care constituted the conceptual framework. Results We identified 69 sources (78 records) from 126,267 records. The knowledge map comprised the following types of respite care: residential, home based, day care, community, leisure/social provision, funded holidays and emergency. Seven policy intentions included early transition planning and prioritising respite care according to need. No evidence was found on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative evidence focused largely on residential respite care. Facilitators of accessible/acceptable services included trusted and valued relationships, independence and empowerment of young adults, peer social interaction, developmental/age-appropriate services and high standards of care. Barriers included transition to adult services, paperwork, referral/provision delay and travelling distance. Young adults from black, Asian and minority ethnic populations were under-represented. Poor transition, such as loss of or inappropriate services, was contrary to statutory expectations. Potential harms included stress and anxiety related to safe care, frustration and distress arising from unmet needs, parental exhaustion, and a lack of opportunities to socialise and develop independence. Limitations No quantitative or mixed-methods evidence was found on effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of respite care. There was limited evidence on planned and emergency respite care except residential. Conclusions Policy intentions are more comprehensively met for young people aged Future work Research to quantify the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of respite care to support service development and commissioning. Development of a core set of outcomes measures to support future collation of evidence. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018088780. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

One-fifth of all disabled children have mobility limitations. Early provision of powered mobility for very young children (aged 5 years) is hypothesised to trigger positive developmental changes. However, the optimum age at which to introduce powered mobility is unknown.The aim of this project was to synthesise existing evidence regarding the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of powered mobility for very young children, compared with the more common practice of powered mobility provision from the age of 5 years.The study was planned as a mixed-methods evidence synthesis and economic modelling study. First, evidence relating to the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, feasibility and anticipated outcomes of paediatric powered mobility interventions was reviewed. A convergent mixed-methods evidence synthesis was undertaken using framework synthesis, and a separate qualitative evidence synthesis was undertaken using thematic synthesis. The two syntheses were subsequently compared and contrasted to develop a logic model for evaluating the outcomes of powered mobility interventions for children. Because there were insufficient published data, it was not possible to develop a robust economic model. Instead, a budget impact analysis was conducted to estimate the cost of increased powered mobility provision for very young children, using cost data from publicly available sources.A range of bibliographic databases [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE™ (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence (OTseeker), Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), PsycINFO, Science Citation Index (SCI; Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA), Social Sciences Citation Index™ (SSCI; Clarivate Analytics), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (CPCI-S; Clarivate Analytics), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Social ScienceHumanities (CPCI-SSH; Clarivate Analytics), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database and OpenGrey] was systematically searched and the included studies were quality appraised. Searches were carried out in June 2018 and updated in October 2019. The date ranges searched covered from 1946 to September 2019.In total, 89 studies were included in the review. Only two randomised controlled trials were identified. The overall quality of the evidence was low. No conclusive evidence was found about the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of powered mobility in children aged either 5 or ≥ 5 years. However, strong support was found that powered mobility interventions have a positive impact on children's movement and mobility, and moderate support was found for the impact on children's participation, play and social interactions and on the safety outcome of accidents and pain. 'Fit' between the child, the equipment and the environment was found to be important, as were the outcomes related to a child's independence, freedom and self-expression. The evidence supported two distinct conceptualisations of the primary powered mobility outcome, movement and mobility: the former is 'movement for movement's sake' and the latter destination-focused mobility. Powered mobility should be focused on 'movement for movement's sake' in the first instance. From the budget impact analysis, it was estimated that, annually, the NHS spends £1.89M on the provision of powered mobility for very young children, which is 2% of total wheelchair service expenditure.The original research question could not be answered because there was a lack of appropriately powered published research.Early powered mobility is likely to have multiple benefits for very young children, despite the lack of robust evidence to demonstrate this. Age is not the key factor; instead, the focus should be on providing developmentally appropriate interventions and focusing on 'movement for movement's sake'.Future research should focus on developing, implementing, evaluating and comparing different approaches to early powered mobility.This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018096449.This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full inThe aim of this study was to find out the benefits and costs of providing very young children, aged 5 years, with powered mobility devices. Examples of powered mobility devices are electrically powered wheelchairs and modified ride-on toys. We looked at many research papers about children and powered mobility. We found many benefits of powered mobility. We then combined all of the information to see if using powered mobility before the age of 5 years had any specific benefits for children. The evidence tells us that powered mobility has a positive effect on children’s movement, and it can boost children’s social interactions with other people, and their independence. Children using powered mobility were able to go to their friends by themselves, move around a play space as they wanted and take part in physical activities and games. We found that the fit between the child, the powered mobility device and the child’s everyday environment was important. When the fit was not good, children experienced a lot of problems. Some children and families felt that powered mobility did not suit their needs, leading to children using a manual wheelchair instead and thereby missing out on education, social opportunities and play. Barriers to powered mobility were found in the physical environment (e.g. inaccessible buildings) and the social environment (e.g. adults supervising children too closely) and often affected children’s independence. We found that the advantages and disadvantages of powered mobility were similar in younger and older children, even though the activities they took part in were different. We also found that each year the NHS spends 2% of its wheelchair service budget on powered mobility for very young children. In conclusion, powered mobility can benefit very young children, but it requires a good fit with the child’s environment.

ObjectiveTo estimate the effectiveness of standardised self-management kits for children with type 1 diabetes.DesignPragmatic trial with randomisation ratio of two intervention: one control. Qualitative process evaluation.Setting11 diabetes clinics in England and Wales.ParticipantsBetween February 2010 and August 2011, we validly randomised 308 children aged 6–18 years; 201 received the intervention.InterventionWe designed kits to empower children to achieve glycaemic control, notably by recording blood glucose and titrating insulin. The comparator was usual treatment.Outcome measures at 3 and 6 monthsPrimary: Diabetes Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). Secondary: HbA1c; General PedsQL; EQ-5D; healthcare resource use.ResultsOf the five Diabetes PedsQL dimensions, Worry showed adjusted scores significantly favouring self-management kits at 3 months (mean child-reported difference =+5.87; Standard error[SE]=2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]) from +1.57 to +10.18; p=0.008); but Treatment Adherence significantly favoured controls at 6 months (mean child-reported difference=−4.68; SE=1.74; 95%CI from −8.10 to −1.25; p=0.008). Intervention children reported significantly worse changes between 3 and 6 months on four of the five Diabetes PedsQL dimensions and on the total score (mean difference=−3.20; SE=1.33; 95% CI from −5.73 to −0.67; p=0.020). There was no evidence of change in HbA1c; only 18% of participants in each group achieved recommended levels at 6 months. No serious adverse reactions attributable to the intervention or its absence were reported.Use of kits was poor. Few children or parents associated blood glucose readings with better glycaemic control. The kits, costing £185, alienated many children and parents.ConclusionsStandardised kits showed no evidence of benefit, inhibited diabetes self-management and increased worry. Future research should study relationships between children and professionals, and seek new methods of helping children and parents to manage diabetes.Trial registration numberNCT17551624.

To explain the differences in organ donation consent outcomes of a new nursing role (Specialist Requesters) derived from the United States (US) compared with the existing nursing role (Specialist Nurses in Organ Donation).Thirty-month observational qualitative process evaluation: Implementation theory-informed analysis.Qualitative content analysis of free text describing challenges, processes and practice from 996 bespoke routinely collected potential organ donor 'approach forms' from two regions: one where there was no difference, and one with an observed difference in consent outcomes.Region A consent rate: Specialist Requester 75.8%, Specialist Nurse in Organ Donation71.8%. Region B consent rate: Specialist Requester 71.4%, Specialist Nurse in Organ Donation 82%. Region A Specialist Requesters turned the family position from no or uncertain to support organ donation in 73% of cases, compared with 27.4% in Region B. Two Specialist Requesters in Region A were highly effective. Region B experienced problems with intervention fidelity and implementation.The benefits of the Specialist Requester role remain unclear. Positive differences in consent rates achieved by Specialist Requesters in the originator region reduced over time and have yet to be successfully replicated in other regions.The impact of Specialist Requesters on consent outcomes varied across regions and it was not known why. Specialist Requesters in Region A were better at getting family member(s) to support organ donation. In Region B, Specialist Nurse in Organ Donation consent rates were higher and problems with intervention fidelity were identified (recruitment, staffing, less experience). Policy makers need to understand it is not just a matter of waiting for the Specialist Requester intervention to work. Ongoing training and recruiting the right people with the right skills need to be addressed and consistently reviewed.目的: 说明美国新型护理职位(专寻家)与现存护理职位(器官捐献专业护士)在获取器官捐赠许可成效方面的不同点。 设计: 进行定性观测并对流程进行评估:采用理论依据分析法 方法: 定期搜集两个不同区域内与潜在器官捐赠者“建立联系的方式”,从中获取描述挑战、流程及实施方法的自由文本,并对其进行定性内容分析:一区域的捐赠许可成效并无不同;而另一区域大有不同。 结果: 区域A许可率:专寻家为75.8%,器官捐献专业护士为71.8%。 区域B许可率:专寻家为71.4%,器官捐献专业护士为82%。 区域A中的专寻家在73%项案例中将家庭状况项勾选内容由“否”更为“不确定”,从而支持器官捐赠,而区域B中,这一数字是27.4%。结果是,区域A中的两名专寻家工作效率极高;而区域B中的则有维持干预保真度及实施方面的问题。 结论: 专寻家一职所带来的效益仍未知。发起人地区的专寻家给许可率方面带来的增长日渐减少,但其他区域尚未有此迹象。 影响: 专寻家对捐赠许可成效的影响视区域而有不同,其原因未知。在区域A,专寻家更擅长让家庭成员支持器官捐献。而在区域B,专业护士达成了更高器官捐献许可率,并且干预保真度方面的问题(职工招聘及安置不当、工作经验不足)也得到了鉴定。政策制定者们需要知道的是,器官捐献并不只意味着等着专寻家调停成功就足够了。现在需要长期提供训练项目,招收对口的技术型职员,并统一进行审查。.

Objectives: This article provides reviewers with guidance on methods for identifying and processing evidence to understand intervention implementation. Study Design and Setting: Strategies, tools, and methods are applied to the systematic review process to illustrate how process and implementation can be addressed using quantitative, qualitative, and other sources of evidence (i.e., descriptive textual and nonempirical). Results: Reviewers can take steps to navigate the heterogeneity and level of uncertainty present in the concepts, measures, and methods used to assess implementation. Activities can be undertaken in advance of a Cochrane quantitative review to develop program theory and logic models that situate implementation in the causal chain. Four search strategies are offered to retrieve process and implementation evidence. Recommendations are made for addressing rigor or risk of bias in process evaluation or implementation evidence. Strategies are recommended for locating and extracting data from primary studies. The basic logic is presented to assist reviewers to make initial review-level judgments about implementation failure and theory failure. Conclusion: Although strategies, tools, and methods can assist reviewers to address process and implementation using quantitative, qualitative, and other forms of evidence, few exemplar reviews exist. There is a need for further methodological development and trialing of proposed approaches. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group develops and publishes guidance on the synthesis of qualitative and mixed-method evidence from process evaluations. Despite a proliferation of methods for the synthesis of qualitative research, less attention has focused on how to integrate these syntheses within intervention effectiveness reviews. In this article, we report updated guidance from the group on approaches, methods, and tools, which can be used to integrate the findings from quantitative studies evaluating intervention effectiveness with those from qualitative studies and process evaluations. We draw on conceptual analyses of mixed methods systematic review designs and the range of methods and tools that have been used in published reviews that have successfully integrated different types of evidence. We outline five key methods and tools as devices for integration which vary in terms of the levels at which integration takes place; the specialist skills and expertise required within the review team; and their appropriateness in the context of limited evidence. In situations where the requirement is the integration of qualitative and process evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews, we recommend the use of a sequential approach. Here, evidence from each tradition is synthesized separately using methods consistent with each tradition before integration takes place using a common framework. Reviews which integrate qualitative and process evaluation evidence alongside quantitative evidence on intervention effectiveness in a systematic way are rare. This guidance aims to support review teams to achieve integration and we encourage further development through reflection and formal testing. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

This mixed-method evidence synthesis drew on Cochrane methods and principles to systematically review literature published between 2003 and 2016 on the best social media practices to promote health protection and dispel misinformation during disasters. Seventy-nine studies employing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods on risk communication during disasters in all UN-languages were reviewed, finding that agencies need to contextualize the use of social media for particular populations and crises. Social media are tools that still have not become routine practices in many governmental agencies regarding public health in the countries studied. Social media, especially Twitter and Facebook (and equivalents in countries such as China), need to be incorporated into daily operations of governmental agencies and implementing partners to build familiarity with them before health-related crises happen. This was especially observed in U.S. agencies, local government, and first responders but also for city governments and school administrations in Europe. For those that do use social media during health-related risk communication, studies find that public relations officers, governmental agencies, and the general public have used social media successfully to spread truthful information and to verify information to dispel rumors during disasters. Few studies focused on the recovery and preparation phases and on countries in the Southern hemisphere, except for Australia. The vast majority of studies did not analyze the demographics of social media users beyond their geographic location, their status of being inside/outside the disaster zone; and their frequency and content of posting. Socioeconomic demographics were not collected and/or analyzed to drill deeper into the implications of using social media to reach vulnerable populations. Who exactly is reached via social media campaigns and who needs to be reached with other means has remained an understudied area.

Although disaster preparedness training is regularly conducted for a range of health-related professions, little evidence-based guidance is available about how best to actually develop capacity in staff for conducting emergency risk communication. This article presents results of a systematic review undertaken to inform the development of World Health Organization guidelines for risk communication during public health and humanitarian emergencies. A total of 6,720 articles were screened, with 24 articles identified for final analysis. The majority of research studies identified were conducted in the United States, were either disaster general or focused on infectious disease outbreak, involved in-service training, and used uncontrolled quantitative or mixed method research designs. Synthesized findings suggest that risk communication training should include a focus on collaboration across agencies, training in working with media, and emphasis on designing messages for specific audience needs. However, certainty of findings was at best moderate due to lack of methodological rigor in most studies.

IntroductionThe number of young adults with complex healthcare needs due to life-limiting conditions/complex physical disability has risen significantly as children with complex conditions survive into adulthood. Respite care and short breaks are an essential service, however, needs often go unmet after the transition to adult services, leading to a significant impact on the life expectancy and quality of life for this population. We aim to identify, appraise and synthesise relevant evidence to explore respite care and short breaks provision for this population, and to develop a conceptual framework for understanding service models.Methods and analysisA mixed-methods systematic review conducted in two stages: (1) knowledge map and (2) evidence review. We will comprehensively search multiple electronic databases; use the Citations, Lead authors, Unpublished materials, Google Scholar, Theories, Early examples, and Related projects (CLUSTER) approach, search relevant websites and circulate a ‘call for evidence’. Using the setting, perspective, intervention/phenomenon of interest, comparison and evaluation framework, two reviewers will independently select evidence for inclusion into a knowledge map and subsequent evidence review, extract data relating to study and population characteristics, methods and outcomes; and assess the quality of evidence. A third reviewer will arbitrate where necessary.Evidence will be synthesised using the following approaches: quantitative (narratively/conducting meta-analyses where appropriate); qualitative (framework approach); policy and guidelines (documentary analysis informed approach). An overall, integrated synthesis will be created using a modified framework approach. We will use Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)/GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research to assess the strength and confidence of the synthesised evidence. Throughout, we will develop a conceptual framework to articulate how service models work in relation to context and setting.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as this is a systematic review. We will present our work in academic journals, at appropriate conferences; we will disseminate findings across networks using a range of media. Steering and advisory groups were established to ensure findings are shared widely and in accessible formats.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018088780.

ObjectivesTo determine the short-term impact of a soft opt-out organ donation system on consent rates and donor numbers.DesignBefore and after observational study using bespoke routinely collected data.SettingNational Health Service Blood and Transplant.Participants205 potential organ donor cases in Wales.InterventionsThe Act and implementation strategy.Primary and secondary outcomesConsent rates at 18 months post implementation compared with 3 previous years, and organ donor numbers 21 months before and after implementation. Changes in organ donor register activity post implementation for 18 months.ResultsThe consent rate for all modes of consent was 61.0% (125/205), showing a recovery from the dip to 45.8% in 2014/2015. 22.4% (46/205) were deemed consented donors: consent rate 60.8% (28/46). Compared with the 3 years before the switch there was a significant difference in Welsh consent rates (χ2 p value=0.009). Over the same time period, rest of the UK consent rates also significantly increased from 58.6% (5256/8969) to 63.1% (2913/4614) (χ2 p valueConclusionThis is the first rigorous initial evaluation with bespoke data collected on all cases. The longer-term impact on consent rates and donor numbers is unclear. Concerns about a potential backlash and mass opting out were not realised. The move to a soft opt-out system has not resulted in a step change in organ donation behaviour, but can be seen as the first step of a longer journey. Policymakers should not assume that soft opt-out systems by themselves simply need more time to have a meaningful effect. Ongoing interventions to further enhance implementation and the public’s understanding of organ donation are needed to reach the 2020 target of 80% consent rates. Further longitudinal monitoring is required.

Background Decision making in health and social care requires robust syntheses of both quantitative and qualitative evidence. Meta-ethnography is a seven-phase methodology for synthesising qualitative studies. Developed in 1988 by sociologists in education Noblit and Hare, meta-ethnography has evolved since its inception; it is now widely used in healthcare research and is gaining popularity in education research. The aim of this article is to provide up-to-date, in-depth guidance on conducting the complex analytic synthesis phases 4 to 6 of meta-ethnography through analysis of the latest methodological evidence. Methods We report findings from a methodological systematic review conducted from 2015 to 2016. Fourteen databases and five other online resources were searched. Expansive searches were also conducted resulting in inclusion of 57 publications on meta-ethnography conduct and reporting from a range of academic disciplines published from 1988 to 2016. Results Current guidance on applying meta-ethnography originates from a small group of researchers using the methodology in a health context. We identified that researchers have operationalised the analysis and synthesis methods of meta-ethnography – determining how studies are related (phase 4), translating studies into one another (phase 5), synthesising translations (phase 6) and line of argument synthesis - to suit their own syntheses resulting in variation in methods and their application. Empirical research is required to compare the impact of different methods of translation and synthesis. Some methods are potentially better at preserving links with the context and meaning of primary studies, a key principle of meta-ethnography. A meta-ethnography can and should include reciprocal and refutational translation and line of argument synthesis, rather than only one of these, to maximise the impact of its outputs. Conclusion The current work is the first to articulate and differentiate the methodological variations and their application for different purposes and represents a significant advance in the understanding of the methodological application of meta-ethnography. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0670-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This paper is one of a series exploring the implications of complexity for systematic reviews and guideline development, commissioned by the WHO. The paper specifically explores the role of qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative evidence synthesis is the broad term for the group of methods used to undertake systematic reviews of qualitative research evidence. As an approach, qualitative evidence synthesis is increasingly recognised as having a key role to play in addressing questions relating to intervention or system complexity, and guideline development processes. This is due to the unique role qualitative research can play in establishing the relative importance of outcomes, the acceptability, fidelity and reach of interventions, their feasibility in different settings and potential consequences on equity across populations. This paper outlines the purpose of qualitative evidence synthesis, provides detail of how qualitative evidence syntheses can help establish understanding and explanation of the complexity that can occur in relation to both interventions and systems, and how qualitative evidence syntheses can contribute to evidence to decision frameworks. It provides guidance for the choice of qualitative evidence synthesis methods in the context of guideline development for complex interventions, giving ‘real life’ examples of where this has occurred. Information to support decision-making around choice qualitative evidence synthesis methods in the context of guideline development is provided. Approaches for reporting qualitative evidence syntheses are discussed alongside mechanisms for assessing confidence in the findings of a review.

Guideline developers are increasingly dealing with more difficult decisions concerning whether to recommend complex interventions in complex and highly variable health systems. There is greater recognition that both quantitative and qualitative evidence can be combined in a mixed-method synthesis and that this can be helpful in understanding how complexity impacts on interventions in specific contexts. This paper aims to clarify the different purposes, review designs, questions, synthesis methods and opportunities to combine quantitative and qualitative evidence to explore the complexity of complex interventions and health systems. Three case studies of guidelines developed by WHO, which incorporated quantitative and qualitative evidence, are used to illustrate possible uses of mixed-method reviews and evidence. Additional examples of methods that can be used or may have potential for use in a guideline process are outlined. Consideration is given to the opportunities for potential integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence at different stages of the review and guideline process. Encouragement is given to guideline commissioners and developers and review authors to consider including quantitative and qualitative evidence. Recommendations are made concerning the future development of methods to better address questions in systematic reviews and guidelines that adopt a complexity perspective.

Systematic review teams and guideline development groups face considerable challenges when considering context within the evidence production process. Many complex interventions are context-dependent and are frequently evaluated within considerable contextual variation and change. This paper considers the extent to which current tools used within systematic reviews and guideline development are suitable in meeting these challenges. The paper briefly reviews strengths and weaknesses of existing approaches to specifying context. Illustrative tools are mapped to corresponding stages of the systematic review process. Collectively, systematic review and guideline production reveals a rich diversity of frameworks and tools for handling context. However, current approaches address only specific elements of context, are derived from primary studies which lack information or have not been tested within systematic reviews. A hypothetical example is used to illustrate how context could be integrated throughout the guideline development process. Guideline developers and evidence synthesis organisations should select an appropriate level of contextual detail for their specific guideline that is parsimonious and yet sensitive to health systems contexts and the values, preferences and needs of their target populations.

The aim of this study was to provide guidance to improve the completeness and clarity of meta-ethnography reporting.Evidence-based policy and practice require robust evidence syntheses which can further understanding of people's experiences and associated social processes. Meta-ethnography is a rigorous seven-phase qualitative evidence synthesis methodology, developed by Noblit and Hare. Meta-ethnography is used widely in health research, but reporting is often poor quality and this discourages trust in and use of its findings. Meta-ethnography reporting guidance is needed to improve reporting quality.The eMERGe study used a rigorous mixed-methods design and evidence-based methods to develop the novel reporting guidance and explanatory notes.The study, conducted from 2015 - 2017, comprised of: (1) a methodological systematic review of guidance for meta-ethnography conduct and reporting; (2) a review and audit of published meta-ethnographies to identify good practice principles; (3) international, multidisciplinary consensus-building processes to agree guidance content; (4) innovative development of the guidance and explanatory notes.Recommendations and good practice for all seven phases of meta-ethnography conduct and reporting were newly identified leading to 19 reporting criteria and accompanying detailed guidance.The bespoke eMERGe Reporting Guidance, which incorporates new methodological developments and advances the methodology, can help researchers to report the important aspects of meta-ethnography. Use of the guidance should raise reporting quality. Better reporting could make assessments of confidence in the findings more robust and increase use of meta-ethnography outputs to improve practice, policy, and service user outcomes in health and other fields. This is the first tailored reporting guideline for meta-ethnography. This article is being simultaneously published in the following journals: Journal of Advanced Nursing, Psycho-oncology, Review of Education, and BMC Medical Research Methodology.目的: 本研究的目的是为提高元人种志报告的完整性和清晰度提供指导。 背景: 基于证据的政策和实践需要强有力的证据合成,以进一步了解人们的经验和相关的社会过程。 种志是由诺伯特和黑尔开发的一种严谨的七-相定性证据综合方法。元人种志在健康研究中被广泛使用,但报告质量往往很差,这阻碍了对研究结果的信任和使用。元人种志报告指南是提高报告质量所必需的。 设计: 本研究采用了严格的混合方法设计和基于证据的方法来开发新的报告指南和注释。 方法: 这项研究从2015年到2017年进行,包括:(1)对元人种志行为和报告指南的方法系统审查;(2)审查和审计已出版的元人种志,以确定良好的实践原则;(3)国际、多学科的共识--建立过程以达成指导内容;(4)创新发展的指导和说明。 研究发现: 新确定的所有七个元人种志实施和报告阶段的建议和良好做法提供了19项报告准则,并附有详细的指南。 结论: 定制的新兴报告指南,包含了新的方法论的发展和进步,可以帮助研究人员报告元人种志的重要方面。使用指南应提高报告质量。更好的报告可以使对调查结果的信心评估更加可靠,并增加对元人种学输出的使用,以改进卫生和其他领域的实践、政策和服务用户结果。这是第一个为元人种学量身定制的报告指南。本文同时发表于《高级护理杂志》、《精神肿瘤学》、《教育评论》和《英国医学委员会医学研究方法论》等期刊。.

Background Qualitative evidence synthesis is increasingly used alongside reviews of effectiveness to inform guidelines and other decisions. To support this use, the GRADE-CERQual approach was developed to assess and communicate the confidence we have in findings from reviews of qualitative research. One component of this approach requires an appraisal of the methodological limitations of studies contributing data to a review finding. Diverse critical appraisal tools for qualitative research are currently being used. However, it is unclear which tool is most appropriate for informing a GRADE-CERQual assessment of confidence. Methodology We searched for tools that were explicitly intended for critically appraising the methodological quality of qualitative research. We searched the reference lists of existing methodological reviews for critical appraisal tools, and also conducted a systematic search in June 2016 for tools published in health science and social science databases. Two reviewers screened identified titles and abstracts, and then screened the full text of potentially relevant articles. One reviewer extracted data from each article and a second reviewer checked the extraction. We used a best-fit framework synthesis approach to code checklist criteria from each identified tool and to organise these into themes. Results We identified 102 critical appraisal tools: 71 tools had previously been included in methodological reviews, and 31 tools were identified from our systematic search. Almost half of the tools were published after 2010. Few authors described how their tool was developed, or why a new tool was needed. After coding all criteria, we developed a framework that included 22 themes. None of the tools included all 22 themes. Some themes were included in up to 95 of the tools. Conclusion It is problematic that researchers continue to develop new tools without adequately examining the many tools that already exist. Furthermore, the plethora of tools, old and new, indicates a lack of consensus regarding the best tool to use, and an absence of empirical evidence about the most important criteria for assessing the methodological limitations of qualitative research, including in the context of use with GRADE-CERQual. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0728-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) have increased in prominence and profile over the last decade as a discrete set of methodologies to undertake systematic reviews of primary qualitative research in health and social care and in education. The findings from a qualitative evidence synthesis can enable a richer interpretation of a particular phenomenon, set of circumstances, or experiences than single primary qualitative research studies can achieve. Qualitative evidence synthesis methods were developed in response to an increasing demand from health and social professionals, policy makers, guideline developers and educationalists for review evidence that goes beyond “what works” afforded by systematic reviews of effectiveness. The increasing interest in the synthesis of qualitative research has led to methodological developments documented across a plethora of texts and journal articles. This “State of the Method” paper aims to bring together these methodological developments in one place, contextualizing advances in methods with exemplars to support readers in making choices in approach to a synthesis and aid understanding. The paper clarifies what a “qualitative evidence synthesis” is and explores its role, purpose and development. It details the kind of questions a QES can explore, the processes associated with a QES, including the methods for synthesis. The rational and methods for integrating a QES with systematic reviews of effectiveness are also detailed. Finally approaches reporting and recognition of what a “good” or rigorous QES look like are provided.

IntroductionThe mental health and well-being of children and young people who have been in care (ie, care-experienced) are a priority. There are a range of interventions aimed at addressing these outcomes, but the international evidence-base remains ambiguous. There is a paucity of methodologically robust systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness, with few considering the contextual conditions under which evaluations were conducted. This is important in understanding the potential transferability of the evidence-base across contexts. The present systematic review will adopt a complex systems perspective to synthesise evidence reporting evaluations of mental health and well-being interventions for care-experienced children and young people. It will address impact, equity, cost-effectiveness, context, implementation and acceptability. Stakeholder consultation will prioritise a programme theory, and associated intervention, that may progress to further development and evaluation in the UK.Methods and analysisWe will search 16 bibliographic databases from 1990 to June 2020. Supplementary searching will include citation tracking, author recommendation, and identification of evidence clusters relevant to included evaluations. The eligible population is children and young people (aged ≤25 years) with experience of being in care. Outcomes are (1) mental, behavioural or neurodevelopmental disorders; (2) subjective well-being; (3) self-harm; suicidal ideation; suicide. Study quality will be appraised with methodologically appropriate tools. We will construct a taxonomy of programme theories and intervention types. Thematic synthesis will be used for qualitative data reporting context, implementation and acceptability. If appropriate, meta-analysis will be conducted with outcome and economic data. Convergent synthesis will be used to integrate syntheses of qualitative and quantitative data.Ethics and disseminationWe have a comprehensive strategy for engagement with care-experienced children and young people, carers and social care professionals. Dissemination will include academic and non-academic publications and conference presentations. Ethical approval from Cardiff University’s School of Social Sciences REC will be obtained if necessary.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020177478.

Background The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) working group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations; (2) coherence; (3) adequacy of data; and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on CERQual’s adequacy of data component. Methods We developed the adequacy of data component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual adequacy of data component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application. Results When applying CERQual, we define adequacy of data as an overall determination of the degree of richness and the quantity of data supporting a review finding. In this paper, we describe the adequacy component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess data adequacy in the context of a review finding as part of the CERQual approach. This guidance outlines the information required to assess data adequacy, the steps that need to be taken to assess data adequacy, and examples of adequacy assessments. Conclusions This paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of adequacy in the context of the CERQual approach. We approach assessments of data adequacy in terms of the richness and quantity of the data supporting each review finding, but do not offer fixed rules regarding what constitutes sufficiently rich data or an adequate quantity of data. Instead, we recommend that this assessment is made in relation to the nature of the finding. We expect the CERQual approach, and its individual components, to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0692-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Funding: This work, including the publication charge for this article, was supported by funding from the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, WHO (http://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/en/). Additional funding was provided by the Department of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO (www.who.int/ reproductivehealth/en/); Norad (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation: www.norad.no), the Research Council of Norway (www.forskningsradet.no); and the Cochrane Methods Innovation Fund. SL is supported by funding from the South African Medical Research Council (www.mrc.ac.za). Background: The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on a probable fifth component, dissemination bias. Given its exploratory nature, we are not yet able to provide guidance on applying this potential component of the CERQual approach. Instead, we focus on how dissemination bias might be conceptualised in the context of qualitative research and the potential impact dissemination bias might have on an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding. We also set out a proposed research agenda in this area. Methods: We developed this paper by gathering feedback from relevant research communities, searching MEDLINE and Web of Science to identify and characterise the existing literature discussing or assessing dissemination bias in qualitative research and its wider implications, developing consensus through project group meetings, and conducting an online survey of the extent, awareness and perceptions of dissemination bias in qualitative research. Results: We have defined dissemination bias in qualitative research as a systematic distortion of the phenomenon of interest due to selective dissemination of studies or individual study findings. Dissemination bias is important for qualitative evidence syntheses as the selective dissemination of qualitative studies and/or study findings may distort our understanding of the phenomena that these syntheses aim to explore and thereby undermine our confidence in these findings. Dissemination bias has been extensively examined in the context of randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews of such studies. The effects of potential dissemination bias are formally considered, as publication bias, within the GRADE approach. However, the issue has received almost no attention in the context of qualitative research. Because of very limited understanding of dissemination bias and its potential impact on review findings in the context of qualitative evidence syntheses, this component is currently not included in the GRADE-CERQual approach. Conclusions: Further research is needed to establish the extent and impacts of dissemination bias in qualitative research and the extent to which dissemination bias needs to be taken into account when we assess how much confidence we have in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses. Publisher PDF

Background The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on CERQual’s relevance component. Methods We developed the relevance component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual relevance component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application. Results When applying CERQual, we define relevance as the extent to which the body of data from the primary studies supporting a review finding is applicable to the context (perspective or population, phenomenon of interest, setting) specified in the review question. In this paper, we describe the relevance component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess relevance in the context of a review finding. This guidance outlines the information required to assess relevance, the steps that need to be taken to assess relevance and examples of relevance assessments. Conclusions This paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of relevance in the context of the CERQual approach. Assessing the relevance component requires consideration of potentially important contextual factors at an early stage in the review process. We expect the CERQual approach, and its individual components, to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0693-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on making an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding and creating a CERQual Evidence Profile and a CERQual Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Methods We developed this guidance by examining the methods used by other GRADE approaches, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We then piloted the guidance on several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the approach. Results Confidence in the evidence is an assessment of the extent to which a review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. Creating a summary of each review finding and deciding whether or not CERQual should be used are important steps prior to assessing confidence. Confidence should be assessed for each review finding individually, based on the judgements made for each of the four CERQual components. Four levels are used to describe the overall assessment of confidence: high, moderate, low or very low. The overall CERQual assessment for each review finding should be explained in a CERQual Evidence Profile and Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Conclusions Structuring and summarising review findings, assessing confidence in those findings using CERQual and creating a CERQual Evidence Profile and Summary of Qualitative Findings table should be essential components of undertaking qualitative evidence syntheses. This paper describes the end point of a CERQual assessment and should be read in conjunction with the other papers in the series that provide information on assessing individual CERQual components. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0689-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group develops and publishes guidance on the synthesis of qualitative and mixed-method implementation evidence. Choice of appropriate methodologies, methods, and tools is essential when developing a rigorous protocol and conducting the synthesis. Cochrane authors who conduct qualitative evidence syntheses have thus far used a small number of relatively simple methods to address similarly written questions. Cochrane has invested in methodological work to develop new tools and to encourage the production of exemplar reviews to show the value of more innovative methods that address a wider range of questions. In this paper, in the series, we report updated guidance on the selection of tools to assess methodological limitations in qualitative studies and methods to extract and synthesize qualitative evidence. We recommend application of Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Qualitative Reviews to assess confidence in qualitative synthesized findings. This guidance aims to support review authors to undertake a qualitative evidence synthesis that is intended to be integrated subsequently with the findings of one or more Cochrane reviews of the effects of similar interventions. The review of intervention effects may be undertaken concurrently with or separate to the qualitative evidence synthesis. We encourage further development through reflection and formal testing. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Contains fulltext : 193415.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) OBJECTIVE: To compare and contrast different methods of qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) against criteria identified from the literature and to map their attributes to inform selection of the most appropriate QES method to answer research questions addressed by qualitative research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Electronic databases, citation searching, and a study register were used to identify studies reporting QES methods. Attributes compiled from 26 methodological papers (2001-2014) were used as a framework for data extraction. Data were extracted into summary tables by one reviewer and then considered within the author team. RESULTS: We identified seven considerations determining choice of methods from the methodological literature, encapsulated within the mnemonic Review question-Epistemology-Time/Timescale-Resources-Expertise-Audience and purpose-Type of data. We mapped 15 different published QES methods against these seven criteria. The final framework focuses on stand-alone QES methods but may also hold potential when integrating quantitative and qualitative data. CONCLUSION: These findings offer a contemporary perspective as a conceptual basis for future empirical investigation of the advantages and disadvantages of different methods of QES. It is hoped that this will inform appropriate selection of QES approaches.

AimsThe aim of this study was to report a secondary qualitative analysis exploring the cultural and practical differences that young people and parents experience when transitioning from children's to adult services.BackgroundDespite two decades of research and quality improvement initiatives, young people with life‐limiting and life‐threatening conditions still find transition unsatisfactory.DesignSecondary analysis: 77 qualitative interviews with children and young people (20), parents (35), siblings (1), professionals (21).MethodsQualitative framework analysis completed 2017.FindingsSix conflicting realities were identified: Planning to live and planning to die with different illness trajectories that misaligned with adult service models; being treated as an adult and the oldest “patient” in children's services compared with being treated as a child and the youngest “patient” in adult services; being a “child” in a child's body in children's services compared with being a “child” in an adult's body in adult services for those with learning impairments; being treated by experienced children's professionals within specialist children's services compared with being treated by relatively inexperienced professionals within generalist adult services; being relatively one of many with the condition in children's services to being one of very few with the condition in adult services; meeting the same eligibility criteria in children's services but not adult services.ConclusionInequity and skills deficits can be addressed through targeted interventions. Expanding age‐specific transition services, use of peer‐to‐peer social media, and greater joint facilitation of social support groups between health services and not‐for‐profit organizations may help mitigate age dilution and social isolation in adult services.

Background The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on CERQual’s methodological limitations component. Methods We developed the methodological limitations component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual methodological limitations component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application. Results When applying CERQual, we define methodological limitations as the extent to which there are concerns about the design or conduct of the primary studies that contributed evidence to an individual review finding. In this paper, we describe the methodological limitations component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess methodological limitations of a review finding as part of the CERQual approach. This guidance outlines the information required to assess methodological limitations component, the steps that need to be taken to assess methodological limitations of data contributing to a review finding and examples of methodological limitation assessments. Conclusions This paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of methodological limitations in the context of the CERQual approach. More work is needed to determine which criteria critical appraisal tools should include when assessing methodological limitations. We currently recommend that whichever tool is used, review authors provide a transparent description of their assessments of methodological limitations in a review finding. We expect the CERQual approach and its individual components to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase.

Background The GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE working group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) relevance, (3) coherence and (4) adequacy of data. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on CERQual’s coherence component. Methods We developed the coherence component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual coherence component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application. Results When applying CERQual, we define coherence as how clear and cogent the fit is between the data from the primary studies and a review finding that synthesises that data. In this paper, we describe the coherence component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess coherence in the context of a review finding as part of the CERQual approach. This guidance outlines the information required to assess coherence, the steps that need to be taken to assess coherence and examples of coherence assessments. Conclusions This paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of coherence in the context of the CERQual approach. We suggest that threats to coherence may arise when the data supporting a review finding are contradictory, ambiguous or incomplete or where competing theories exist that could be used to synthesise the data. We expect the CERQual approach, and its individual components, to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0691-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The GRADE-CERQual (‘Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research’) approach provides guidance for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research (or qualitative evidence syntheses). The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. Confidence in the evidence from qualitative evidence syntheses is an assessment of the extent to which a review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. CERQual provides a systematic and transparent framework for assessing confidence in individual review findings, based on consideration of four components: (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data, and (4) relevance. A fifth component, dissemination (or publication) bias, may also be important and is being explored. As with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach for effectiveness evidence, CERQual suggests summarising evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative Summary of Qualitative Findings tables. These tables are designed to communicate the review findings and the CERQual assessment of confidence in each finding. This article is the first of a seven-part series providing guidance on how to apply the CERQual approach. In this paper, we describe the rationale and conceptual basis for CERQual, the aims of the approach, how the approach was developed, and its main components. We also outline the purpose and structure of this series and discuss the growing role for qualitative evidence in decision-making. Papers 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in this series discuss each CERQual component, including the rationale for including the component in the approach, how the component is conceptualised, and how it should be assessed. Paper 2 discusses how to make an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding and how to create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. The series is intended primarily for those undertaking qualitative evidence syntheses or using their findings in decision-making processes but is also relevant to guideline development agencies, primary qualitative researchers, and implementation scientists and practitioners. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aim To examine the application of core concepts from Complexity Theory to explain the findings from a process evaluation undertaken in a trial evaluating implementation strategies for recommendations about reducing surgical fasting times. Background The proliferation of evidence-based guidance requires a greater focus on its implementation. Theory is required to explain the complex processes across the multiple healthcare organizational levels. This social healthcare context involves the interaction between professionals, patients and the organizational systems in care delivery. Complexity Theory may provide an explanatory framework to explain the complexities inherent in implementation in social healthcare contexts. Design A secondary thematic analysis of qualitative process evaluation data informed by Complexity Theory. Method Seminal texts applying Complexity Theory to the social context were annotated, key concepts extracted and core Complexity Theory concepts identified. These core concepts were applied as a theoretical lens to provide an explanation of themes from a process evaluation of a trial evaluating the implementation of strategies to reduce surgical fasting times. Sampled substantive texts provided a representative spread of theoretical development and application of Complexity Theory from late 1990's–2013 in social science, healthcare, management and philosophy. Findings Five Complexity Theory core concepts extracted were ‘self-organization’, ‘interaction’, ‘emergence’, ‘system history’ and ‘temporality’. Application of these concepts suggests routine surgical fasting practice is habituated in the social healthcare system and therefore it cannot easily be reversed. A reduction to fasting times requires an incentivised new approach to emerge in the surgical system's priority of completing the operating list. Conclusion The application of Complexity Theory provides a useful explanation for resistance to change fasting practice. Its utility in implementation research warrants further attention and evaluation.

IntroductionThe Human Transplantation (Wales) Act 2013 (the Act) introduced a ‘soft opt-out’ system of organ donation on 1 December 2015. Citizens are encouraged to make their organ donation decision known during their lifetime. In order to work, the Act and media campaign need to create a context, whereby organ donation becomes the norm, and create a mechanism for people to behave as intended (formally register their decision; consider appointing a representative; convey their donation decision to their families and friends or do nothing—deemed consent). In addition, family members/appointed representatives need to be able to put their own views aside to support the decision of their loved one. The aim of this study is to evaluate initial implementation, outcomes and impact on families and appointed representatives who were approached about organ donation during the first 18 months.Methods and analysisProspective mixed-method coproductive study undertaken with National Health Service Blood and Transplant (NHSBT), and multiple patient/public representatives. The study is designed to collect information on all cases who meet specified criteria (≥18 years, deceased person voluntarily resident in Wales and died in Wales or England) whose family were approached between 1 December 2015 and 31 June 2017). Data for analysis include: NHSBT routinely collected anonymised audit data on all cases; Specialist Nurse in Organ Donation (SNOD) completed anonymised form for all cases documenting their perception of the families’ understanding of the Act, media campaign and outcome of the donation approach; questionnaires and depth interviews with any family member or appointed representative (minimum 50 cases). Additional focus groups and interviews with SNODs. Anonymised donation outcomes and registration activity reports for Wales provide additional context.Ethics and disseminationApproved by NHSBT Research, Innovation and Technology Advisory Group on 23 October 2015; Wales Research Ethics Committee 5 (IRAS190066; Rec Reference 15/WA/0414) on 25 November 2015 and NHSBT R&D Committee (NHSBT ID: AP-15–02) on 24 November 2015.RegistrationThe protocol is registered on the Health and Care Research Wales Clinical Research Portfolio. Study ID number 34396, www.ukctg.nihr.ac.uk

Objective The objective of this research project was to evaluate the validity of proxy health-related quality of life measures in the context of paediatric mobility impairment. Accurate health-related quality of life data is essential for quality-adjusted life year calculation; a key outcome in economic evaluation. Thirteen child-parent dyads (13 children with mobility impairments, 13 parent proxies) were asked to complete a range of outcome measures (EQ-5D-Y, VAS and HUI2/3) relating to the child’s health. The relationship between respondent outcomes was examined using tests of respondent type effect (Wilcoxon signed-rank), correlation (Spearman’s rank-order) and agreement (Bland–Altman plots). Results Parent proxies significantly undervalued the health-related quality of life of their mobility-impaired children: children rated their health-related quality of life higher than their parents by proxy on all measures. The VAS had the highest overall mean score for children and proxies (79.50 [SD = 15.01] and 75.77 [SD = 14.70] respectively). Child and proxy results were significantly different (p

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials (also referred to as ‘randomised controlled trials’ or ‘trials’) are the optimal way to minimise bias in evaluating the effects of competing treatments, therapies and innovations in health care. It is important to achieve the required sample size for a trial, otherwise trialists may not be able to draw conclusive results leading to research waste and raising ethical questions about trial participation. The reasons why potential participants may accept or decline participation are multifaceted. Yet, the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to improve recruitment to trials is not substantial and fails to recognise these individual decision‐making processes. It is important to synthesise the experiences and perceptions of those invited to participate in randomised trials to better inform recruitment strategies. OBJECTIVES: To explore potential trial participants’ views and experiences of the recruitment process for participation. The specific objectives are to describe potential participants’ perceptions and experiences of accepting or declining to participate in trials, to explore barriers and facilitators to trial participation, and to explore to what extent barriers and facilitators identified are addressed by strategies to improve recruitment evaluated in previous reviews of the effects of interventions including a Cochrane Methodology Review. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, LILACS, PsycINFO, ORRCA, and grey literature sources. We ran the most recent set of searches for which the results were incorporated into the review in July 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative and mixed‐methods studies (with an identifiable qualitative component) that explored potential trial participants’ experiences and perceptions of being invited to participate in a trial. We excluded studies that focused only on recruiters’ perspectives, and trials solely involving children under 18 years, or adults who were assessed as having impaired mental capacity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Five review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used the CART (completeness, accuracy, relevance, timeliness) criteria to exclude studies that had limited focus on the phenomenon of interest. We used QSR NVivo to extract and manage the data. We assessed methodological limitations using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used thematic synthesis to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided analytical themes and a conceptual model. We used the GRADE‐CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. Our findings were integrated with two previous intervention effectiveness reviews by juxtaposing the quantitative and qualitative findings in a matrix. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 studies (published in 30 papers) in our synthesis. Twenty‐two key findings were produced under three broad themes (with six subthemes) to capture the experience of being invited to participate in a trial and making the decision whether to participate. Most of these findings had moderate to high confidence. We identified factors from the trial itself that influenced participation. These included how trial information was communicated, and elements of the trial such as the time commitment that might be considered burdensome. The second theme related to personal factors such as how other people can influence the individual’s decision; and how a personal understanding of potential harms and benefits could impact on the decision. Finally, the potential benefits of participation were found to be key to the decision to participate, namely personal benefits such as access to new treatments, but also the chance to make a difference and help others. The conceptual model we developed presents the decision‐making process as a gauge and the factors that influence whether the person will, or will not, take part. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative evidence synthesis has provided comprehensive insight into the complexity of factors that influence a person's decision whether to participate in a trial. We developed key questions that trialists can ask when developing their recruitment strategy. In addition, our conceptual model emphasises the need for participant‐centred approaches to recruitment. We demonstrated moderate to high level confidence in our findings, which in some way can be attributed to the large volume of highly relevant studies in this field. We recommend that these insights be used to direct or influence or underpin future recruitment strategies that are developed in a participant‐driven way that ultimately improves trial conduct and reduces research waste.

OBJECTIVES: To conceptualise and discuss dissemination bias in qualitative research. \ud \ud RESULTS: It is likely that the mechanisms leading to dissemination bias in quantitative research, including time lag, language, gray literature, and truncation bias also contribute to dissemination bias in qualitative research. These conceptual considerations have informed the development of a research agenda. \ud \ud CONCLUSION: Further exploration of dissemination bias in qualitative research is needed, including the extent of non-dissemination and related dissemination bias, and how to assess dissemination bias within qualitative evidence syntheses. We also need to consider the mechanisms through which dissemination bias in qualitative research could occur to explore approaches for reducing it. \ud

Background Health interventions fall along a spectrum from simple to more complex. There is wide interest in methods for reviewing ‘complex interventions’, but few transparent approaches for assessing intervention complexity in systematic reviews. Such assessments may assist review authors in, for example, systematically describing interventions and developing logic models. This paper describes the development and application of the intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (iCAT_SR), a new tool to assess and categorise levels of intervention complexity in systematic reviews. Methods We developed the iCAT_SR by adapting and extending an existing complexity assessment tool for randomized trials. We undertook this adaptation using a consensus approach in which possible complexity dimensions were circulated for feedback to a panel of methodologists with expertise in complex interventions and systematic reviews. Based on these inputs, we developed a draft version of the tool. We then invited a second round of feedback from the panel and a wider group of systematic reviewers. This informed further refinement of the tool. Results The tool comprises ten dimensions: (1) the number of active components in the intervention; (2) the number of behaviours of recipients to which the intervention is directed; (3) the range and number of organizational levels targeted by the intervention; (4) the degree of tailoring intended or flexibility permitted across sites or individuals in applying or implementing the intervention; (5) the level of skill required by those delivering the intervention; (6) the level of skill required by those receiving the intervention; (7) the degree of interaction between intervention components; (8) the degree to which the effects of the intervention are context dependent; (9) the degree to which the effects of the interventions are changed by recipient or provider factors; (10) and the nature of the causal pathway between intervention and outcome. Dimensions 1–6 are considered ‘core’ dimensions. Dimensions 7–10 are optional and may not be useful for all interventions. Conclusions The iCAT_SR tool facilitates more in-depth, systematic assessment of the complexity of interventions in systematic reviews and can assist in undertaking reviews and interpreting review findings. Further testing of the tool is now needed. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0349-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Wheelchairs for children with impaired mobility provide health, developmental and psychosocial benefits, however there is limited understanding of how mobility aids affect the health-related quality of life of children with impaired mobility. Preference-based health-related quality of life outcome measures are used to calculate quality-adjusted life years; an important concept in health economics. The aim of this research was to understand how young wheelchair users and their parents define health-related quality of life in relation to mobility impairment and wheelchair use. Methods The sampling frame was children with impaired mobility (≤18 years) who use a wheelchair and their parents. Data were collected through semi-structured face-to-face interviews conducted in participants’ homes. Qualitative framework analysis was used to analyse the interview transcripts. An a priori thematic coding framework was developed. Emerging codes were grouped into categories, and refined into analytical themes. The data were used to build an understanding of how children with impaired mobility define health-related quality of life in relation to mobility impairment, and to assess the applicability of two standard measures of health-related quality of life. Results Eleven children with impaired mobility and 24 parents were interviewed across 27 interviews. Participants defined mobility-related quality of life through three distinct but interrelated concepts: 1) participation and positive experiences; 2) self-worth and feeling fulfilled; 3) health and functioning. A good degree of consensus was found between child and parent responses, although there was some evidence to suggest a shift in perception of mobility-related quality of life with child age. Conclusions Young wheelchair users define health-related quality of life in a distinct way as a result of their mobility impairment and adaptation use. Generic, preference-based measures of health-related quality of life lack sensitivity in this population. Development of a mobility-related quality of life outcome measure for children is recommended.

IntroductionKidney disease is common, affecting up to 1 in 10 of the adult population, and the numbers are expected to rise over the next decade. There are three main treatments that are available to patients with kidney disease: transplantation, dialysis and supportive care without dialysis. Dialysis can occur in a dialysis unit or in a person’s home, but unit-based dialysis remains the most common initial treatment for patients in Wales. This is a cause for concern as most studies suggest that it is associated with the lowest quality of life and the highest mortality, and is a more expensive treatment option.This study aims to identify the factors that lead to patients choosing unit-based haemodialysis rather than home-based dialysis with a view to informing future changes in patient education and service commissioning in Wales. A secondary aim is to determine if the co-production of research leads to more sustainable services.Methods and analysisThis mixed-method study taking place between October 2018 and September 2020 will use a sequential explanatory design whereby the descriptive quantitative cross-sectional analysis of linked health and administrative data sets inform qualitative data collection from patients, carers and health and care professionals. Qualitative findings will be used to interpret or explain quantitative descriptive results. Additional strands to the study include a review of materials and education provided to patients and an economic review of treatment modalities.Ethics and disseminationThe study will be conducted in accordance with the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki. It has full approval from Health and Care Research Wales Research Ethics Committee #5. As a co-productive study involving patients, clinicians, third sector partners and academics, findings from this study will be shared on a continual basis. Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences.

When making decisions about complex interventions, guideline development groups need to factor in the sociocultural acceptability of an intervention, as well as contextual factors that impact on the feasibility of that intervention. Qualitative evidence synthesis offers one method of exploring these issues. This paper considers the extent to which current methods of question formulation are meeting this challenge. It builds on a rapid review of 38 different frameworks for formulating questions. To be useful, a question framework should recognise context (as setting, environment or context); acknowledge the criticality of different stakeholder perspectives (differentiated from the target population); accommodate elements of time/timing and place; be sensitive to qualitative data (eg, eliciting themes or findings). None of the identified frameworks satisfied all four of these criteria. An innovative question framework, PerSPEcTiF, is proposed and retrospectively applied to a published WHO guideline for a complex intervention. Further testing and evaluation of the PerSPEcTiF framework is required.

There is growing interest in the potential for complex systems perspectives in evaluation. This reflects a move away from interest in linear chains of cause-and-effect, towards considering health as an outcome of interlinked elements within a connected whole. Although systems-based approaches have a long history, their concrete implications for health decisions are still being assessed. Similarly, the implications of systems perspectives for the conduct of systematic reviews require further consideration. Such reviews underpin decisions about the implementation of effective interventions, and are a crucial part of the development of guidelines. Although they are tried and tested as a means of synthesising evidence on the effectiveness of interventions, their applicability to the synthesis of evidence about complex interventions and complex systems requires further investigation. This paper, one of a series of papers commissioned by the WHO, sets out the concrete methodological implications of a complexity perspective for the conduct of systematic reviews. It focuses on how review questions can be framed within a complexity perspective, and on the implications for the evidence that is reviewed. It proposes criteria which can be used to determine whether or not a complexity perspective will add value to a review or an evidence-based guideline, and describes how to operationalise key aspects of complexity as concrete research questions. Finally, it shows how these questions map onto specific types of evidence, with a focus on the role of qualitative and quantitative evidence, and other types of information.

Aim To gain a better understanding of how children aged 6–18 years who use wheelchairs and their families conceptualized physical exercise and keeping fit. Background Disabled children with reduced mobility are commonly overweight and unfit. Nurse-led health screening programmes in schools commonly exclude disabled children if they cannot use standard weighing scales or stand against height measuring sticks. Design Qualitative interview study at two time points over 6 months with children who use wheelchairs and their families. Methods Framework analysis using the theory of planned behaviour. Findings Mainly physically active participants were recruited (24 children and 23 parents) 2013–2014. Despite engaging in high levels of physical exercise, children were assessed as fit but had elevated body fat and did not realize how fit they were or that they were slightly overweight and nor did their parents. Children enjoyed the social benefits of exercise. Unlike their parents, children confused the purpose and outcomes of physical exercise with therapy (e.g. physiotherapy) and incorrectly understood the effects of physical exercise on body function and strength, preventing stiffness, increasing stamina and reducing fatigue. A new model was developed to show children's misconceptions. Conclusions Proactive parents can overcome barriers to enable their children to benefit from physical exercise. Professionals need to increase communication clarity to improve children's understanding of therapy compared with physical exercise outcomes. Inclusion of children who use wheelchairs in health education policy; routine health screening; physical education classes and teacher training requires improvement. Body composition measurement is recommended, for which nurses will need training.

Objective\ud \ud Systematic reviews of quantitative evidence are well-established in health and social care. Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence are increasingly available, but volume, topics covered, methods used and reporting quality are largely unknown. We provide a descriptive overview of systematic reviews of qualitative evidence assessing health and social care interventions included on the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE).\ud \ud Study design and setting\ud \ud We searched DARE for reviews published between 1st January 2009 and 31st December 2014. We extracted data on review content and methods, summarised narratively and explored patterns over time.\ud \ud Results\ud \ud We identified 145 systematic reviews conducted worldwide (64 in the UK). Interventions varied, but largely covered treatment or service delivery in community and hospital settings. There were no discernible patterns over time. Critical appraisal of primary studies was conducted routinely. Most reviews were poorly reported.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud Potential exists to use systematic reviews of qualitative evidence when driving forward user-centred health and social care. We identify where more research is needed and propose ways to improve review methodology and reporting.

Background Approximately 95 million children worldwide are disabled; 10 % use a wheelchair. In the UK, an estimated 770,000 children are disabled. National Health Service Wheelchair Services are the largest provider of wheelchairs in the UK; however, recent reports have highlighted issues with these services. This study explores the use of discrete choice experiment methods to inform wheelchair service provision for disabled children based on service user preferences. The aim was to explore how disabled children and their parents prioritise different attributes of wheelchair services. The secondary aims were to compare priorities between parents and disabled children and to explore marginal rate of substitution for incremental changes in attributes. Methods Discrete choice experiments are a method of attribute-based stated preference valuation used by health economists to understand how individuals prioritise different attributes of healthcare services and treatments. We conducted the first pilot discrete choice experiment to explore how disabled children (aged 11 to 18) and their parents prioritise different attributes of hypothetical wheelchair services. Eleven disabled children (aged 11 to 18) and 30 parents of disabled children completed eight pairwise choice tasks based on five service attributes: wheelchair assessment, cost contribution, training, delivery time and frequency of review. Data were analysed using conditional logistic regression. For each pairwise choice, the participants were asked to choose which service scenario (A or B) they preferred. Results Comprehensiveness of wheelchair assessment and wheelchair delivery time significantly (P

Cochrane Reviews are systematic reviews of primary research in human health care and health policy, and are internationally recognized health care resources for use in a decision-making process.1 Cochrane works collaboratively with contributors around the world to produce authoritative, relevant, and reliable reviews. Cochrane reviews are commonly used in a guideline development process to determine recommendations for practice. The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group provide methodological advice and guidance to Cochrane as well as leading methodological development to benefit the wider qualitative evidence synthesis community. In this introductory paper 1 we briefly outline the evolution of qualitative and mixed-method synthesis methods, the role of qualitative and mixedmethod syntheses in a decision-making process, and the contribution of qualitative and mixed-method syntheses to understanding complexity in complex intervention reviews. We then introduce a series of papers that provide Cochrane guidance on conducting qualitative and mixed-method evidence syntheses for a decision-making context. ispartof: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology vol:97 issue:97 pages:35-38 ispartof: location:United States status: published