Making Space for Qualitative Evidence in Global Maternal and Child Health Policymaking

Author:

Colvin Christopher J.

Abstract

AbstractThe success of health interventions often hinges on complex processes of implementation, the impact of sociopolitical and cultural contexts, resource constraints and opportunity costs, and issues of equity and accountability. Qualitative research offers critical insights for understanding these issues. “Qualitative evidence syntheses” (or QES)—modeled on quantitative systematic reviews—have recently emerged as an important vehicle for integrating insights from qualitative evidence into global health policy. However, it is challenging to integrate QES into policymaking in ways that are bothacceptableto the often-conservative health policy world andconsonantwith social science’s distinctive methodologies and paradigms. Based on my experiences participating in and observing numerous guideline working group meetings and interviews with key informants, this chapter offers an auto-ethnographic account of an effort to integrate QES into the World Health Organization’s global OptimizeMNH guidelines for task shifting in maternal and newborn health (MNH). It is based on my experiences participating in and observing numerous guideline working group meetings as well as interviews with several key informants. Advocates of QES were successful in helping to make a place for qualitative evidence in this global guideline. Their work, however, required a delicate balance between adopting quantitatively inspired methods for evidence synthesis and innovating new methods that would both suit the project needs and be seen as legitimate by qualitative researchers. This case study of the development of one WHO guideline does not signal a revolution in knowledge production, but it does show there remains room—perhaps growing room—for a more expansive vision of what forms of knowledge need to be on the table when developing global health policy.

Publisher

Springer International Publishing

Reference35 articles.

1. Adams, V. (2013). Evidence-based global public health: Subjects, profits, erasures. In J. Biehl & A. Petryna (Eds.), When people come first: Critical studies in global health (pp. 54–90). Princeton University Press.

2. Adams, V. (2016). Metrics: What counts in global health. Duke University Press.

3. Bhaumik, S. (2017). Use of evidence for clinical practice guideline development. Tropical Parasitology, 7(2), 65–71.

4. Bohlin, I. (2012). Formalizing syntheses of medical knowledge: The rise of meta-analysis and systematic reviews. Perspectives on Science, 20(3), 273–309.

5. Bosch-Capblanch, X., Lavis, J. N., Lewin, S., Atun, R., Rottingen, J. A., Droschel, D., et al. (2012). Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: Rationale for and challenges of guidance development. PLoS Medicine, 9(3), e1001185.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3