Advertisement

Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 1: introduction

Published:December 11, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.09.025
      Cochrane reviews are systematic reviews of primary research in human health care and health policy and are internationally recognized health care resources for use in a decision-making process [
      • Jørgensen A.W.
      • Hilden J.
      • Gøtzsche P.C.
      Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review.
      ]. Cochrane works collaboratively with contributors around the world to produce authoritative, relevant, and reliable reviews. Cochrane reviews are commonly used in a guideline development process to determine recommendations for practice. The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group provide methodological advice and guidance to Cochrane as well as leading methodological development to benefit the wider qualitative evidence synthesis community. In this introductory paper 1, we briefly outline the evolution of qualitative and mixed-method synthesis methods, the role of qualitative and mixed-method syntheses in a decision-making process, and the contribution of qualitative and mixed-method syntheses to understand the complexity in complex intervention reviews. We then introduce a series of papers that provide Cochrane guidance on conducting qualitative and mixed-method evidence syntheses for a decision-making context.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Jørgensen A.W.
        • Hilden J.
        • Gøtzsche P.C.
        Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review.
        Research. 2006; 333: 782
        • Noyes J.
        • Popay J.
        • Pearson A.
        • Hannes K.
        • Booth A.
        Chapter 20: qualitative research and Cochrane reviews.
        ([updated September 2008])in: Higgins J.P.T. Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008 (Available at)
        http://www.cochrane-handbook.org
        Version: Version 5.0.1
        (Accessed December 1, 2017)
        • Booth A.
        • Noyes J.
        • Flemming K.
        • Gerhardus A.
        • Wahlster P.
        • Van Der Wilt G.J.
        • et al.
        Guidance on choosing QES methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions.
        2016 ([Online]. Available at) (Accessed December 1, 2017)
        • Lewin S.
        • Glenton C.
        • Munthe-Kaas H.
        • Carlsen B.
        • Colvin C.J.
        • Gülmezoglu M.
        • et al.
        Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual).
        PLoS Med. 2015; 12: e1001895
        • Moore G.
        • Audrey S.
        • Barker M.
        • Bond L.
        • Bonell C.
        • Hardeman W.
        • et al.
        Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance.
        2014 (Available at)
        • Gulmezoglu A.M.
        • Chandler J.
        • Shepperd S.
        • Pantoja T.
        Reviews of qualitative evidence: a new milestone for Cochrane.
        2013 (Available at)
        • Glenton C.
        • Colvin C.J.
        • Carlsen B.
        • Swartz A.
        • Lewin S.
        • Noyes J.
        • et al.
        Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of lay health worker programmes to improve access to maternal and child health: qualitative evidence synthesis.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; : CD010414
      1. WHO. Optimizing health worker roles for maternal and neonatal health. Available at www.optimizemnh.org. Accessed 16.03.2016

        • World Health Organisation
        Health worker roles in providing safe abortion care and post-abortion contraception.
        WHO, Geneva2015 (Available at) (Accessed December 1, 2017)
        • Petticrew M.
        • Anderson L.
        • Elder R.
        • Grimshaw J.
        • Hopkins D.
        • Hahn R.
        • et al.
        Complex interventions and their implications for systematic reviews: a pragmatic approach.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 1209-1214
        • Squires J.
        • Valentine J.
        • Grimshaw J.
        Systematic reviews of complex interventions: framing the review question.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 1215-1222
        • Anderson L.
        • Oliver S.
        • Michie S.
        • Rehfuess E.
        • Noyes J.
        • Shemilt I.
        Investigating complexity in systematic reviews of interventions using a spectrum of methods.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 1223-1229
        • Petticrew M.
        • Rehfuess E.
        • Noyes J.
        • Higgins J.P.T.
        • Mayhew A.
        • Pantoja T.
        • et al.
        Synthesising evidence on complex interventions: the contribution of meta-analytic, qualitative and mixed-method approaches.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 1230-1243
        • Pigott T.
        • Sheppard S.
        Identifying, documenting and examining heterogeneity in systematic reviews of complex interventions.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 1244-1250
        • Burford B.
        • Lewin S.
        • Welch V.
        • Rehfuess E.
        • Waters E.
        Assessing applicability in systematic reviews of complex interventions.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 1251-1261
        • Noyes J.
        • Gough D.
        • Lewin S.
        • Mayhew A.
        • Michie S.
        • Pantoja T.
        • et al.
        Systematic reviews that ask complex questions about complex interventions: a research and development agenda.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 1262-1270
        • Kelly M.P.
        • Noyes J.
        • Kane R.L.
        • Chang C.
        • Uhl S.
        • Robinson K.A.
        • et al.
        AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews – paper 2: defining complexity, formulating scope and questions.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 90: 11-18
        • Butler M.
        • Epstein R.A.
        • Totten A.
        • Whitlock E.P.
        • Ansari M.T.
        • Damschroder L.J.
        • et al.
        AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews – paper 3: adapting frameworks to develop protocols.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 90: 19-27
        • Pigott T.
        • Noyes J.
        • Umscheid C.A.
        • Myers E.
        • Morton S.C.
        • Fu R.
        • et al.
        AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews – paper 5: advanced analytic methods.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 90: 37-42
        • Viswanathan M.
        • McPheeters M.L.
        • Murad M.H.
        • Butler M.E.
        • Devine E.E.B.
        • Dyson M.P.
        • et al.
        AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews – paper 4: selecting analytic approaches.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 90: 28-36
        • Guise J.-M.
        • Butler M.
        • Chang C.
        • Viswanathan M.
        • Pigott T.
        • Tugwell P.
        AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews – paper 6: PRISMA-CI extension statement & checklist.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 90: 43-50
        • Guise J.-M.
        • Butler M.
        • Chang C.
        • Viswanathan M.
        • Pigott T.
        • Tugwell P.
        AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews – paper 7: PRISMA-CI Elaboration & Explanation.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 90: 51-58
      2. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Website. Available at http://methods.cochrane.org/qi/. Accessed September 18, 2017.

      3. RevMan Flexible Template. Available at http://www.cochrane-net.org/imshelp/resources/reviews/creating_reviews.htm. Accessed October 1, 2016.

        • Harris J.L.
        • Booth A.
        • Cargo M.
        • Hannes K.
        • Harden A.
        • Flemming K.
        • et al.
        Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 97: 39-48
        • Noyes J.
        • Booth A.
        • Flemming K.
        • Garside R.
        • Harden A.
        • Lewin S.
        • et al.
        Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 97: 49-58
        • Cargo M.
        • Harris J.
        • Pantoja T.
        • Booth A.
        • Harden A.
        • Hannes K.
        • Thomas J.
        • et al.
        Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 4: methods for assessing evidence on intervention implementation.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 97: 59-69
        • Harden A.
        • Thomas J.
        • Cargo M.
        • Harris J.
        • Pantoja T.
        • Flemming K.
        • Booth A.
        • et al.
        Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 97: 70-78
        • Flemming K.
        • Booth A.
        • Hannes K.
        • Cargo M.
        • Noyes J.
        Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 6: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation evidence syntheses.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 97: 79-85