Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods

Author:

Noyes JaneORCID,Booth AndrewORCID,Moore Graham,Flemming KateORCID,Tunçalp Özge,Shakibazadeh Elham

Abstract

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.

Funder

Funding provided by the World Health Organization Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health through a grant received from the United States Agency for International Development.

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy

Reference64 articles.

1. Evidence-Based Public Health: Moving Beyond Randomized Trials

2. de Savigny D , Borghi J , Windish R . Chapter 3. Systems thinging: applying a systems perspective to design and evaluate health systems interventions. In: de Savigny D , Tagheed A , eds. Systems thinging for health systems strengtheing. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2009.

3. Realist complex intervention science: Applying realist principles across all phases of the Medical Research Council framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions

4. Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health;Raine;Health Services and Delivery Research,2016

5. Researching public health: Behind the qualitative-quantitative methodological debate

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