POS1552-HPR A SYNTHESIS OF GUIDANCE AVAILABLE FOR ASSESSING METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY AND GRADING OF EVIDENCE FROM QUALITATIVE RESEARCH TO INFORM CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

BackgroundQualitative research is crucial to understand key stakeholders experiences and perspectives of care and health services. However, there is a lack of explicit frameworks and guidelines about how best to use qualitative evidence to formulate clinical recommendations. Part of the problem includes uncertainties about the contributions of qualitative research to the evidence, and the empirical and theoretical basis for appraising and synthesizing qualitative evidence in a standardized manner. In addition, most existing grading systems of qualitative research originates from quantitative research, and there is no clear guidance about how to incorporate qualitative research into the evidence hierarchy.ObjectivesTo conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) to answer two research questions (RQ):RQ1) What guidance (e.g., tools, checklists, frameworks) exists to assess the methodological quality of qualitative research employed to inform clinical recommendations?;RQ2) What methods exist specifically to grade levels of evidence for qualitative research?MethodsThe protocol for this review was registered on www.researchregistry.com (reviewregistry1240). Electronic databases (PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, COCHRANE, Emcare, PsycINFO, ERIC, Academic Search Premier, Sociological Abstracts, ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis Global) were searched for published and unpublished studies. Searches were completed from inception to 23rd October 2020. No restrictions were applied to clinical population. Eligible studies for both questions included primary articles and guideline documents available in English, describing the: i) development; ii) application of validated tools (e.g., checklists); iii) guidance on how to assess methodological quality of qualitive research and iv) guidance on how to grade levels of qualitative evidence. Opinion pieces and conference abstracts were excluded. Manual searches of the reference lists of full text articles were conducted. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full text. A narrative synthesis was conducted to identify key aspects between the included studies.Results9071 records were retrieved (Figure 1). After de-duplication and title/abstract screening, 51 full-articles articles were assessed for eligibility yielding 15 included articles. For RQ1, six articles were included that described six tools (1) The society for Critical Care Medicine Family – Cantered Care Guidelines; 2) Nursing Management of the Second Stage of Labour evidence based clinical practice guidelines; 3) Jonna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal of Qualitative Studies; 4) Critical Skill’s Appraisal Programme (CASP) and 6) the Modified CASP checklist). All tools ranged from 10 to 30 items, and evaluated research design, recruitment, ethical rigour, data collection and data analysis. Seven articles described one approach (GRADE CER-Qual) to assess methodological quality of qualitative research. This approach advised on the importance for assessing methodological limitations. For RQ2, two articles were included, one described a qualitative hierarchy of evidence, and another described a research pyramid that included a section on qualitative research.Figure 1.PRISMA diagram of included papersConclusionThis review highlights lack of consensus and limited availability of tools, checklists, and approaches to 1) appraise the methodological quality of qualitative research used to inform clinical recommendations and 2) grade levels of evidence for qualitative research. Current research agendas will need to determine the most relevant and appropriate method for the quality appraisal of qualitative research. This way, qualitative research could be more consistently and appropriately applied to the development of clinical recommendations.ReferencesN/ADisclosure of InterestsMandeep Sekhon: None declared, Annette de Thurah: None declared, George E. Fragoulis: None declared, Tanja Stamm: None declared, T.P.M. Vliet Vlieland: None declared, Bente Appel Esbensen: None declared, Heidi Lempp: None declared, Lindsay Bearne: None declared, Marios Kouloumas: None declared, Polina Pchelnikova: None declared, Thijs W. Swinnen: None declared, Chris Blunt: None declared, Ricardo J. O. Ferreira: None declared, Loreto Carmona: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou Speakers bureau: Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapgos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Eli Lilly