The CONSENSYS approach: An instrument to support CONtextual SENsitivity in SYStematic reviews

被引:3
作者
Bengough, Theresa [1 ,2 ]
Sommer, Isolde [3 ]
Hannes, Karin [1 ]
机构
[1] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Fac Social Sci, Res Grp SoMeTHinK Social Methodol & Theoret Innov, Parkstr 45 Box 3601, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
[2] Austrian Natl Publ Hlth Inst, Natl Ctr Early Childhood Intervent, Vienna, Austria
[3] Univ Continuing Educ Krems, Dept Evidence Based Med, Krems, Austria
关键词
contextual factors; implications; policy and practice; qualitative research; stakeholder engagement processes; systematic reviews; INTERVENTIONS; IMPLEMENTATION; TRANSLATION; GUIDELINES; KNOWLEDGE;
D O I
10.1002/jrsm.1615
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Contextual factors such as cultural values and traditions impact on implementation processes of healthcare interventions. It is one of the reasons why local stakeholders may decide to role out a programme differently from how it has originally been developed or described in scientific literature. This can result in different but most likely more context-specific outcomes. Systematic reviews are considered important in answering what works, for whom and in which circumstances. They often include a section on implications for policymakers and practitioners, in which they discuss relevant options to engage with. Implementation sections are coloured by the cultural background, theoretical and disciplinary perspective of the reviewers formulating them. They do not necessarily consider local contexts in which the evidence needs to be applied, hence the recommendations may be too general to be useful. When policy makers and practitioners implement systematic review findings the evidence presented needs to be translated to their local context. We propose CONSENSYS, an instrument that facilitates the transfer from review evidence into practice. CONSENSYS contains 52 contextual factors categorised as either of ecological and socio-cultural relevance or pitched as influencing actor. CONSENSYS is relevant for reviewers because it supports them in structuring and formulating context-sensitive implications sections. It may also guide end-users of systematic reviews in translating review evidence for use in local policies and practices. CONSENSYS is the first rigorously developed instrument that focusses on implications for policy and practice sections in systematic reviews.
引用
收藏
页码:266 / 282
页数:17
相关论文
共 44 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1988, Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies
[2]   Hope, Agency, and the Lived Experience of Violence: A Qualitative Systematic Review of Children's Perspectives on Domestic Violence and Abuse [J].
Arai, Lisa ;
Shaw, Ali ;
Feder, Gene ;
Howarth, Emma ;
MacMillan, Harriet ;
Moore, Theresa H. M. ;
Stanley, Nicky ;
Gregory, Alison .
TRAUMA VIOLENCE & ABUSE, 2021, 22 (03) :427-438
[3]   Investigator Triangulation: A Collaborative Strategy With Potential for Mixed Methods Research [J].
Archibald, Mandy M. .
JOURNAL OF MIXED METHODS RESEARCH, 2016, 10 (03) :228-250
[4]  
Auerbach C., 2003, QUALITATIVE DATA INT, V21
[5]  
Bengough T, 2021, THESIS KATHOLIC U LE
[6]   Factors that influence women's engagement with breastfeeding support: A qualitative evidence synthesis [J].
Bengough, Theresa ;
Dawson, Shoba ;
Cheng, Hui-Lin ;
McFadden, Alison ;
Gavine, Anna ;
Rees, Rebecca ;
Sacks, Emma ;
Hannes, Karin .
MATERNAL AND CHILD NUTRITION, 2022, 18 (04)
[7]   The use of purposeful sampling in a qualitative evidence synthesis: A worked example on sexual adjustment to a cancer trajectory [J].
Benoot, Charlotte ;
Hannes, Karin ;
Bilsen, Johan .
BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2016, 16
[8]  
Booth A., 2011, Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 1: Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group
[9]   Taking account of context in systematic reviews and guidelines considering a complexity perspective [J].
Booth, Andrew ;
Moore, Graham ;
Flemming, Kate ;
Garside, Ruth ;
Rollins, Nigel ;
Tuncalp, Ozge ;
Noyes, Jane .
BMJ GLOBAL HEALTH, 2019, 4
[10]   Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? [J].
Cairney, Paul ;
Oliver, Kathryn .
HEALTH RESEARCH POLICY AND SYSTEMS, 2017, 15