19 results on '"Lewin, Simon"'
Search Results
2. Using qualitative research to develop an elaboration of the TIDieR checklist for interventions to enhance vaccination communication: short report
- Author
-
Glenton, Claire, Carlsen, Benedicte, Winje, Brita Askeland, Eilers, Renske, Wennekes, Manuela Dominique, Hoffmann, Tammy C., and Lewin, Simon
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. Participants' and investigators' experiences and views of potential adverse effects of an educational intervention: Protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis
- Author
-
Oxman, Matt, Oxman, Andrew D., Lewin, Simon, and Fretheim, Atle
- Subjects
secondary school resources ,harms ,school ,high school students ,unintended effects ,framework synthesis ,public health interventions ,young people ,critical appraisal ,LMICs ,learning resources ,low-income countries ,qualitative evidence synthesis ,pupils ,Medicine and Health Sciences ,adolescents ,critical thinking ,educational interventions ,unexpected effects ,educational resources ,high school ,education ,youth ,students ,LICs ,public health ,health ,developing countries ,critical health literacy ,learners ,"best fit" framework synthesis ,framework analysis ,high school resources ,side effects ,QES ,adverse effects ,Secondary Education ,secondary school ,unanticipated effects ,secondary school students ,evidence-based medicine ,health literacy ,evidence-based healthcare ,teaching resources ,low and middle-income countries - Abstract
Introduction To help students think critically about health information and decisions, we developed the Informed Health Choices (IHC) secondary school intervention. We are evaluating the intervention in cluster-randomised trials, and linked process evaluations, in Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda. The study planned herein is a qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), using data about experiences and views of adverse effects from all three process evaluations. The QES overlaps with the process evaluations. The QES will allow us to comprehensively explore, report, and discuss experiences and views of potential adverse effects, and potential mechanisms. The findings are intended to help inform decisions about whether or how to redevelop, re-evaluate, or implement the intervention. The methods and findings might also be helpful to developing, evaluating, or implementing other educational interventions—especially interventions intended to improve critical thinking, within health or other fields. Objective Explore participants’ and investigators’ experiences and views of potential adverse effects of the IHC secondary school intervention, and potential mechanisms of those effects. Methods An independent researcher will assess methodological limitations of the included studies, based on a list of domains used by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group. We will merge and modify framework analysis as outlined by Ritchie and Spencer, framework synthesis as described by Barnett-Page et al., and “best fit” framework synthesis as outlined by Carrol et al. All three are pragmatic approaches with a deductive analysis using an a priori framework, followed by an inductive thematic analysis. We will note possible differences in how participants generally conceptualise adverse effects of educational interventions, compared to the study team, and possible differences in adverse effects across trial settings, for the purposes of future research. To assess confidence in the synthesis findings, we will apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach, using the interactive Summary of Qualitative Findings (iSoQ) tool. We will produce a Qualitative Evidence Profile, and Summary of Qualitative Findings Tables. Discussion The QES and the process evaluations overlapping and being part of the same project has methodological implications that amount to both strengths and limitations. Like in prospective meta-analyses, when planning the process evaluations, we harmonised the objectives, facilitating synthesis, while investigators in each setting still had autonomy to explore phenomena specifically for their study. Like individual patient data (IDP) meta-analyses, this study will be based on data from the process evaluations, facilitating more reliable analysis and synthesis than if it was only based on reported findings. As far as we are aware, this QES will be the first of its kind methodologically, and first empirical study of its size and rigour focusing on potential adverse effects of an educational intervention. The QES and process evaluations overlapping and being part of the same project also introduces risk of bias. Another challenge is that we are including the study team’s experiences and views. In general, to address these challenges, we will be transparent, and apply reflexivity throughout.
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 2 – Using qualitative evidence synthesis findings to inform evidence-to-decision frameworks and recommendations
- Author
-
Lewin, Simon, Glenton, Claire, Lawrie, Theresa A., Downe, Soo, Finlayson, Kenneth W., Rosenbaum, Sarah, Barreix, María, and Tunçalp, Özge
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. Systematic mapping of existing tools to appraise methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative research: first stage in the development of the CAMELOT tool
- Author
-
Munthe-Kaas, Heather Menzies, Glenton, Claire, Booth, Andrew, Noyes, Jane, and Lewin, Simon
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
6. Purposive sampling in a qualitative evidence synthesis: a worked example from a synthesis on parental perceptions of vaccination communication
- Author
-
Ames, Heather, Glenton, Claire, and Lewin, Simon
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
7. Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance
- Author
-
France, Emma F., Cunningham, Maggie, Ring, Nicola, Uny, Isabelle, Duncan, Edward A. S., Jepson, Ruth G., Maxwell, Margaret, Roberts, Rachel J., Turley, Ruth L., Booth, Andrew, Britten, Nicky, Flemming, Kate, Gallagher, Ian, Garside, Ruth, Hannes, Karin, Lewin, Simon, Noblit, George W., Pope, Catherine, Thomas, James, Vanstone, Meredith, Higginbottom, Gina M. A., and Noyes, Jane
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
8. Are we entering a new era for qualitative research? Using qualitative evidence to support guidance and guideline development by the World Health Organization
- Author
-
Lewin, Simon and Glenton, Claire
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
9. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Qualitative Evidence Syntheses, Differences From Reviews of Intervention Effectiveness and Implications for Guidance.
- Author
-
Glenton, Claire, Lewin, Simon, Downe, Soo, Paulsen, Elizabeth, Munabi-Babigumira, Susan, Agarwal, Smisha, Ames, Heather, Cooper, Sara, Daniels, Karen, Houghton, Catherine, Karimi‐Shahanjarini, Akram, Moloi, Hlengiwe, Odendaal, Willem, Shakibazadeh, Elham, Vasudevan, Lavanya, Xyrichis, Andreas, and Bohren, Meghan A.
- Subjects
- *
QUANTITATIVE research , *QUALITATIVE research , *INFORMATION resources , *QUALITY standards - Abstract
Systematic reviews of qualitative research ('qualitative evidence syntheses') are increasingly popular and represent a potentially important source of information about people's views, needs and experiences. Since 2013, Cochrane has published qualitative evidence syntheses, and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group has been involved in the majority of these reviews. But more guidance is needed on how to prepare these reviews in an environment that is more familiar with reviews of quantitative research. In this paper, we describe and reflect on how Cochrane qualitative evidence syntheses differ from reviews of intervention effectiveness and how these differences have influenced the guidance developed by the EPOC group. In particular, we discuss how it has been important to display to end users, firstly, that qualitative evidence syntheses are carried out with rigour and transparency, and secondly, that these quality standards need to reflect qualitative research traditions. We also discuss lessons that reviews of effectiveness might learn from qualitative research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
10. Developing a reporting guideline to improve meta-ethnography in health research: the eMERGe mixed-methods study
- Author
-
Cunningham, Maggie, France, Emma, Ring, Nicola, Uny, Isabelle, Duncan, Edward, Jepson, Ruth, Maxwell, Margaret, Roberts, Rachel, Turley, Ruth, Booth, Andrew, Britten, Nicky, Flemming, Kate, Gallagher, Ian, Garside, Ruth, Hannes, Karin, Noblit, George, Lewin, Simon, Pope, Catherine, Thomas, James, Vanstone, Meredith, and Noyes, Jane
- Subjects
Research design ,RJ ,R1 Medicine (General) ,MEDLINE ,Psychological intervention ,Audit ,Guideline ,RT ,law.invention ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,law ,Meta-ethnography, qualitative evidence synthesis, health research ,Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Publication standards ,Qualitative Research ,Medical education ,business.industry ,lcsh:Public aspects of medicine ,030503 health policy & services ,Meta-ethnography ,lcsh:RA1-1270 ,Usability ,L1 ,610.7 Medical education, research & nursing ,R1 ,Reporting ,Research Design ,CLARITY ,H1 ,Systematic review ,0305 other medical science ,business ,Psychology ,RA ,RD ,Qualitative research - Abstract
BackgroundMeta-ethnography is a commonly used methodology for qualitative evidence synthesis. Research has identified that the quality of reporting of published meta-ethnographies is often poor and this has limited the utility of meta-ethnography findings to influence policy and practice.ObjectiveTo develop guidance to improve the completeness and clarity of meta-ethnography reporting.Methods/designThe meta-ethnography reporting guidance (eMERGe) study followed the recommended approach for developing health research reporting guidelines and used a systematic mixed-methods approach. It comprised (1) a methodological systematic review of guidance in the conduct and reporting of meta-ethnography; (2) a review and audit of published meta-ethnographies, along with interviews with meta-ethnography end-users, to identify good practice principles; (3) a consensus workshop and two eDelphi (Version 1, Duncan E, Swinger K, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK) studies to agree guidance content; and (4) the development of the guidance table and explanatory notes.ResultsResults from the methodological systematic review and the audit of published meta-ethnographies revealed that more guidance was required around the reporting of all phases of meta-ethnography conduct and, in particular, the synthesis phases 4–6 (relating studies, translating studies into one another and synthesising translations). Following the guidance development process, the eMERGe reporting guidance was produced, comprising 19 items grouped into the seven phases of meta-ethnography.LimitationsThe finalised guidance has not yet been evaluated in practice; therefore, it is not possible at this stage to comment on its utility. However, we look forward to evaluating its uptake and usability in the future.ConclusionsThe eMERGe reporting guidance has been developed following a rigorous process in line with guideline development recommendations. The guidance is intended to improve the clarity and completeness of reporting of meta-ethnographies, and to facilitate use of the findings within the guidance to inform the design and delivery of services and interventions in health, social care and other fields. The eMERGe project developed a range of training materials to support use of the guidance, which is freely available atwww.emergeproject.org(accessed 26 March 2018). Meta-ethnography is an evolving qualitative evidence synthesis methodology and future research should refine the guidance to accommodate future methodological developments. We will also investigate the impact of the eMERGe reporting guidance with a view to updating the guidance.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015024709 for the stage 1 systematic review.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
- Published
- 2019
11. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias.
- Author
-
Booth, Andrew, Lewin, Simon, Glenton, Claire, Munthe-Kaas, Heather, Toews, Ingrid, Noyes, Jane, Rashidian, Arash, Berg, Rigmor C., Nyakang'o, Brenda, Meerpohl, Joerg J., and GRADE-CERQual Coordinating Team
- Subjects
- *
QUALITATIVE research , *EVIDENCE , *CONFIDENCE , *DECISION making , *METHODOLOGY - Abstract
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
12. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 2: how to make an overall CERQual assessment of confidence and create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table.
- Author
-
Lewin, Simon, Bohren, Meghan, Rashidian, Arash, Munthe-Kaas, Heather, Glenton, Claire, Colvin, Christopher J., Garside, Ruth, Noyes, Jane, Booth, Andrew, Tunçalp, Özge, Wainwright, Megan, Flottorp, Signe, Tucker, Joseph D., and Carlsen, Benedicte
- Subjects
- *
QUALITATIVE research , *EVIDENCE , *CONFIDENCE , *DECISION making , *METHODOLOGY - Abstract
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
13. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series.
- Author
-
Lewin, Simon, Booth, Andrew, Glenton, Claire, Munthe-Kaas, Heather, Rashidian, Arash, Wainwright, Megan, Bohren, Meghan A., Tunçalp, Özge, Colvin, Christopher J., Garside, Ruth, Carlsen, Benedicte, Langlois, Etienne V., and Noyes, Jane
- Subjects
- *
QUALITATIVE research , *DECISION making , *EVIDENCE , *CONFIDENCE , *RESEARCH methodology - Abstract
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
14. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 3: how to assess methodological limitations.
- Author
-
Munthe-Kaas, Heather, Bohren, Meghan A., Glenton, Claire, Lewin, Simon, Noyes, Jane, Tunçalp, Özge, Booth, Andrew, Garside, Ruth, Colvin, Christopher J., Wainwright, Megan, Rashidian, Arash, Flottorp, Signe, and Carlsen, Benedicte
- Subjects
QUALITATIVE research ,DECISION making ,EVIDENCE ,CONFIDENCE ,METHODOLOGY - Abstract
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
15. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data.
- Author
-
Noyes, Jane, Booth, Andrew, Lewin, Simon, Carlsen, Benedicte, Glenton, Claire, Colvin, Christopher J., Garside, Ruth, Bohren, Meghan A., Rashidian, Arash, Wainwright, Megan, Tunςalp, Özge, Chandler, Jacqueline, Flottorp, Signe, Pantoja, Tomas, Tucker, Joseph D., and Munthe-Kaas, Heather
- Subjects
QUALITATIVE research ,EVIDENCE ,CONFIDENCE ,DECISION making ,METHODOLOGY - Abstract
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
16. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 5: how to assess adequacy of data.
- Author
-
Glenton, Claire, Carlsen, Benedicte, Lewin, Simon, Munthe-Kaas, Heather, Colvin, Christopher J., Tunçalp, Özge, Bohren, Meghan A., Noyes, Jane, Booth, Andrew, Garside, Ruth, Rashidian, Arash, Flottorp, Signe, and Wainwright, Megan
- Subjects
QUALITATIVE research ,CONFIDENCE ,EVIDENCE ,DECISION making ,METHODOLOGY - Abstract
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
17. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 4: how to assess coherence.
- Author
-
Colvin, Christopher J., Garside, Ruth, Wainwright, Megan, Munthe-Kaas, Heather, Glenton, Claire, Bohren, Meghan A., Carlsen, Benedicte, Tunçalp, Özge, Noyes, Jane, Booth, Andrew, Rashidian, Arash, Flottorp, Signe, and Lewin, Simon
- Subjects
QUALITATIVE research ,CONFIDENCE ,EVIDENCE ,DECISION making ,COHERENCE (Philosophy) - Abstract
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
18. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings
- Author
-
Margaret Cargo, Tomas Pantoja, Andrew Booth, Angela Harden, Jane Noyes, Kate Flemming, Ruth Garside, Karin Hannes, James Thomas, Simon Lewin, Noyes, Jane, Booth, Andrew, Flemming, Kate, Garside, Ruth, Harden, Angela, Lewin, Simon, Pantoja, Tomas, Hannes, Karin, Cargo, Margaret, and Thomas, James
- Subjects
Data Analysis ,Biomedical Research ,Epidemiology ,Computer science ,Qualitative evidence ,Decision Making ,education ,Psychological intervention ,Intervention effect ,Formal testing ,methodological limitations ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,systematic review ,qualitative evidence synthesis ,Humans ,030212 general & internal medicine ,GRADE CERQual ,Qualitative Research ,Protocol (science) ,Evidence-Based Medicine ,Management science ,Data Accuracy ,Data extraction ,cochrane ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery ,qualitative research ,Systematic Reviews as Topic ,Qualitative research - Abstract
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
- Published
- 2018
19. Critical Appraisal of Qualitative Research
- Author
-
Hannes, Karin, Noyes, Jane, Booth, Andrew, Hannes, Karin, Harden, Angela, Harris, Janet, Lewin, Simon, and Lockwood, Craig
- Subjects
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis - Abstract
• Critical appraisal of qualitative studies is an essential step within a Cochrane Intervention review that incorporates qualitative evidence. • The overarching goal of critical appraisal in the context of including qualitative research in a Cochrane Intervention Review is to assess whether the studies actually address questions under meaning, process and context in relation to the intervention and outcomes under review. • Review teams should use a critical appraisal instrument that is underpinned by a multi-dimensional concept of quality in research and hence includes items to assess quality according to several domains including quality of reporting, methodological rigour and conceptual depth and bread. • Critical appraisal involves (i) filtering against minimum criteria, involving adequacy of reporting detail on the data sampling, -collection and-analysis, (ii) technical rigour of the study elements indicating methodological soundness and (iii) paradigmatic sufficiency, referring to researchers’ responsiveness to data and theoretical consistency. • When choosing an appraisal instrument a Review teams should consider the available expertise in qualitative research within the team and should ensure that the critical appraisal instrument they choose is appropriate given the review question and the type of studies to be included. • Reviewers need to clarify how the outcome of their critical appraisal exercise is used with respect to the presentation of their findings. The inclusion of a sensitivity analysis is recommended to evaluate the magnitude of methodological flaws or the extent to which it has a small rather than a big impact on the findings and conclusions. Available from URL http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance ispartof: Supplementary guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions edition:Version ispartof: edition:Version edition: Version status: published
- Published
- 2011
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.