98
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series

      editorial

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The GRADE-CERQual (‘Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research’) approach provides guidance for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research (or qualitative evidence syntheses). The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. Confidence in the evidence from qualitative evidence syntheses is an assessment of the extent to which a review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. CERQual provides a systematic and transparent framework for assessing confidence in individual review findings, based on consideration of four components: (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data, and (4) relevance. A fifth component, dissemination (or publication) bias, may also be important and is being explored. As with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach for effectiveness evidence, CERQual suggests summarising evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative Summary of Qualitative Findings tables. These tables are designed to communicate the review findings and the CERQual assessment of confidence in each finding. This article is the first of a seven-part series providing guidance on how to apply the CERQual approach. In this paper, we describe the rationale and conceptual basis for CERQual, the aims of the approach, how the approach was developed, and its main components. We also outline the purpose and structure of this series and discuss the growing role for qualitative evidence in decision-making. Papers 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in this series discuss each CERQual component, including the rationale for including the component in the approach, how the component is conceptualised, and how it should be assessed. Paper 2 discusses how to make an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding and how to create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. The series is intended primarily for those undertaking qualitative evidence syntheses or using their findings in decision-making processes but is also relevant to guideline development agencies, primary qualitative researchers, and implementation scientists and practitioners.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 1: What is evidence-informed policymaking?

          This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. In this article, we discuss the following three questions: What is evidence? What is the role of research evidence in informing health policy decisions? What is evidence-informed policymaking? Evidence-informed health policymaking is an approach to policy decisions that aims to ensure that decision making is well-informed by the best available research evidence. It is characterised by the systematic and transparent access to, and appraisal of, evidence as an input into the policymaking process. The overall process of policymaking is not assumed to be systematic and transparent. However, within the overall process of policymaking, systematic processes are used to ensure that relevant research is identified, appraised and used appropriately. These processes are transparent in order to ensure that others can examine what research evidence was used to inform policy decisions, as well as the judgements made about the evidence and its implications. Evidence-informed policymaking helps policymakers gain an understanding of these processes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and techniques

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data

              Background The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on CERQual’s relevance component. Methods We developed the relevance component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual relevance component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application. Results When applying CERQual, we define relevance as the extent to which the body of data from the primary studies supporting a review finding is applicable to the context (perspective or population, phenomenon of interest, setting) specified in the review question. In this paper, we describe the relevance component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess relevance in the context of a review finding. This guidance outlines the information required to assess relevance, the steps that need to be taken to assess relevance and examples of relevance assessments. Conclusions This paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of relevance in the context of the CERQual approach. Assessing the relevance component requires consideration of potentially important contextual factors at an early stage in the review process. We expect the CERQual approach, and its individual components, to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0693-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                simon.lewin@fhi.no
                a.booth@sheffield.ac.uk
                claire.glenton@fhi.no
                heather.munthe-kaas@fhi.no
                rashidiana@who.int
                megan.wainwright@uct.ac.za
                bohrenm@who.int
                tuncalpo@who.int
                cj.colvin@uct.ac.za
                r.garside@exeter.ac.uk
                Benedicte.carlsen@uni.no
                langloise@who.int
                jane.noyes@bangor.ac.uk
                Journal
                Implement Sci
                Implement Sci
                Implementation Science : IS
                BioMed Central (London )
                1748-5908
                25 January 2018
                25 January 2018
                2018
                : 13
                Issue : Suppl 1 Issue sponsor : Publication of this supplement has not been supported by sponsorship. Information about the source of funding for publication charges can be found in the individual articles. The articles have undergone the journal's standard peer review process for supplements. The Supplement Editor declares that they have no competing interests.
                : 2
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 1541 4204, GRID grid.418193.6, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, ; Oslo, Norway
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9155 0024, GRID grid.415021.3, Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, ; Cape Town, South Africa
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9262, GRID grid.11835.3e, School of Health & Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, ; Sheffield, UK
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0166 0922, GRID grid.411705.6, Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, , Tehran University of Medical Sciences, ; Tehran, Iran
                [5 ]Information, Evidence and Research Department, Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office, World Health Organization, Cairo, Egypt
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1937 1151, GRID grid.7836.a, Division of Social and Behavioural Sciences, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, , University of Cape Town, ; Cape Town, South Africa
                [7 ]ISNI 0000000121633745, GRID grid.3575.4, UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, , WHO, ; Geneva, Switzerland
                [8 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8024, GRID grid.8391.3, European Centre for Environment and Human Health, , University of Exeter Medical School, ; Exeter, UK
                [9 ]GRID grid.426489.5, Uni Research Rokkan Centre, ; Bergen, Norway
                [10 ]ISNI 0000000121633745, GRID grid.3575.4, Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, , World Health Organization, ; Geneva, Switzerland
                [11 ]ISNI 0000000118820937, GRID grid.7362.0, School of Social Sciences, , Bangor University, ; Bangor, UK
                Article
                688
                10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3
                5791040
                29384079
                5e5cda35-8a0a-48cf-9255-5cc753c39be1
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                Categories
                Introduction
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Medicine
                qualitative research,qualitative evidence synthesis,systematic review methodology,research design,methodology,confidence,guidance,evidence-based practice,recommendations for practice,grade

                Comments

                Comment on this article