Formulating questions to explore complex interventions within qualitative evidence synthesis

被引:140
作者
Booth, Andrew [1 ]
Noyes, Jane [2 ]
Flemming, Kate [3 ]
Moore, Graham [4 ]
Tuncalp, Ozge [5 ]
Shakibazadeh, Elham [6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sheffield, Sch Hlth & Related Res, Sheffield, S Yorkshire, England
[2] Bangor Univ, Sch Social Sci, Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales
[3] Univ York, Dept Hlth Sci, York, N Yorkshire, England
[4] Cardiff Univ, Sch Social Sci, Cardiff, S Glam, Wales
[5] WHO, Dept Reprod Hlth & Res Including UNDP UNFPA UNICE, Geneva, Switzerland
[6] Univ Tehran Med Sci, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Hlth Educ & Promot, Tehran, Iran
关键词
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; AHRQ SERIES; EXPERIENCES; GUIDANCE; SCOPE;
D O I
10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001107
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
When making decisions about complex interventions, guideline development groups need to factor in the sociocultural acceptability of an intervention, as well as contextual factors that impact on the feasibility of that intervention. Qualitative evidence synthesis offers one method of exploring these issues. This paper considers the extent to which current methods of question formulation are meeting this challenge. It builds on a rapid review of 38 different frameworks for formulating questions. To be useful, a question framework should recognise context (as setting, environment or context); acknowledge the criticality of different stakeholder perspectives (differentiated from the target population); accommodate elements of time/timing and place; be sensitive to qualitative data (eg, eliciting themes or findings). None of the identified frameworks satisfied all four of these criteria. An innovative question framework, PerSPEcTiF, is proposed and retrospectively applied to a published WHO guideline for a complex intervention. Further testing and evaluation of the PerSPEcTiF framework is required.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]   Health systems guidance appraisal-a critical interpretive synthesis [J].
Ako-Arrey, Denis E. ;
Brouwers, Melissa C. ;
Lavis, John N. ;
Giacomini, Mita K. .
IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE, 2016, 11
[2]   GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction [J].
Alonso-Coello, Pablo ;
Schunemann, Holger J. ;
Moberg, Jenny ;
Brignardello-Petersen, Romina ;
Akl, Elie A. ;
Davoli, Marina ;
Treweek, Shaun ;
Mustafa, Reem A. ;
Rada, Gabriel ;
Rosenbaum, Sarah ;
Morelli, Angela ;
Guyatt, Gordon H. ;
Oxman, Andrew D. .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2016, 353
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2013, Guidelines for Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management
[4]   Systematic reviews in the social sciences. A practical guide. [J].
Beelmann, Andreas .
EUROPEAN PSYCHOLOGIST, 2006, 11 (03) :244-245
[5]  
Booth A., 2016, GUIDANCE CHOOSING QU
[6]  
Booth A., 2016, Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review, V2nd ed.
[7]   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
[8]   Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice [J].
Booth, Andrew .
LIBRARY HI TECH, 2006, 24 (03) :355-368
[9]   Structured methodology review identified seven (RETREAT) criteria for selecting qualitative evidence synthesis approaches [J].
Booth, Andrew ;
Noyes, Jane ;
Flemming, Kate ;
Gerhardus, Ansgar ;
Wahlster, Philip ;
van der Wilt, Gert Jan ;
Mozygemba, Kati ;
Refolo, Pietro ;
Sacchini, Dario ;
Tummers, Marcia ;
Rehfuess, Eva .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2018, 99 :41-52
[10]  
Booth AL, 2017, WORLD SUSTAIN SER, P187, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-47868-5_12