End‐user understanding of qualitative comparative analysis used within evidence synthesis: A mixed‐methods study

Kahwati, Leila C.; Kelly, Bridget; Johnson, Mihaela; Clark, R T; Viswanathan, Meera

doi:10.1002/jrsm.1602

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our project’s findings recommend evidence synthesis summaries which minimise methodological details. This is also supported by previous research with end-users of systematic reviews [ 21 ] which found that unfamiliar methods and terminology were barriers to fully understanding findings. A brief mention of methods, emphasizing key messages, and avoiding GRADE terminology (i.e., ‘low-certainty evidence’) is also promoted by Cochrane’s guidance for plain language summaries (PLS) [ 22 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Co-design workshops to develop evidence synthesis summary formats for use by clinical guideline development groups

Murray,

Magendran,

Chander

et al. 2024

Syst Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Evidence synthesis is used by decision-makers in various ways, such as developing evidence-based recommendations for clinical guidelines. Clinical guideline development groups (GDGs) typically discuss evidence synthesis findings in a multidisciplinary group, including patients, healthcare providers, policymakers, etc. A recent mixed methods systematic review (MMSR) identified no gold standard format for optimally presenting evidence synthesis findings to these groups. However, it provided 94 recommendations to help produce more effective summary formats for general evidence syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews). To refine the MMSR recommendations to create more actionable guidance for summary producers, we aimed to explore these 94 recommendations with participants involved in evidence synthesis and guideline development. Methods We conducted a descriptive qualitative study using online focus group workshops in February and March 2023. These groups used a participatory co-design approach with interactive voting activities to identify preferences for a summary format's essential content and style. We created a topic guide focused on recommendations from the MMSR with mixed methods support, ≥ 3 supporting studies, and those prioritized by an expert advisory group via a pragmatic prioritization exercise using the MoSCoW method (Must, Should, Could, and Will not haves). Eligible participants must be/have been involved in GDGs and/or evidence synthesis. Groups were recorded and transcribed. Two independent researchers analyzed transcripts using directed content analysis with 94 pre-defined codes from the MMSR. Results Thirty individuals participated in six focus groups. We coded 79 of the 94 pre-defined codes. Participants suggested a “less is more” structured approach that minimizes methodological steps and statistical data, promoting accessibility to all audiences by judicious use of links to further information in the full report. They emphasized concise, consistently presented formats that highlight key messages, flag readers to indicators of trust in the producers (i.e., logos, websites, and conflict of interest statements), and highlight the certainty of evidence (without extenuating details). Conclusions This study identified guidance based on the preferences of guideline developers and evidence synthesis producers about the format of evidence synthesis summaries to support decision-making. The next steps involve developing and user-testing prototype formats through one-on-one semi-structured interviews to optimize evidence synthesis summaries and support decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Co-design workshops to develop evidence synthesis summary formats for use by clinical guideline development groups

Murray,

Magendran,

Chander

et al. 2024

Syst Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(4) Our project's ndings recommend evidence synthesis summaries which minimise methodological details. This is also supported by previous research with endusers of systematic reviews (20) which found that unfamiliar methods and terminology were barriers to fully understanding ndings. A brief mention of methods, emphasizing key messages, and avoiding GRADE terminology (i.e., 'low-certainty evidence') are also promoted by Cochrane's guidance for plain language summaries (PLS).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Co-design workshops to develop evidence synthesis summary formats for use by clinical guideline development groups

Murray,

Magendran,

Chander

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Evidence synthesis is used by decision-makers in various ways, such as developing evidence-based recommendations for clinical guidelines. Clinical guideline development groups (GDGs) typically discuss evidence synthesis findings in a multidisciplinary group, including patients, healthcare providers, policymakers, etc. A recent mixed methods systematic review (MMSR) identified no gold standard format for optimally presenting evidence synthesis findings to these groups. However, it provided 94 recommendations to help produce more effective summary formats for general evidence syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews). To refine the MMSR recommendations to create more actionable guidance for summary producers, we aimed to explore these 94 recommendations with participants involved in evidence synthesis and guideline development. Methods: We conducted a descriptive qualitative study using online focus group workshops in February and March 2023. These groups used a participatory co-design approach with interactive voting activities to identify preferences for a summary format's essential content and style. We created a topic guide focused on recommendations from the MMSR with mixed methods support, ≥3 supporting studies, and those prioritised by an expert advisory group via a pragmatic prioritisation exercise using the MoSCoW method (Must, Should, Could, and Will not haves). Eligible participants must be/have been involved in GDGs and/or evidence synthesis. Groups were recorded and transcribed. Two independent researchers analysed transcripts using directed content analysis with 94 pre-defined codes from the MMSR. Results: Thirty individuals participated in six focus groups. We coded 79 of the 94 pre-defined codes. Participants suggested a “less is more” structured approach that minimises methodological steps and statistical data, promoting accessibility to all audiences by judicious use of links to further information in the full report. They emphasised concise, consistently-presented formats which highlight key messages, flag readers to indicators of trust in the producers (i.e., logos, websites, and conflict of interest statements), and highlight the certainty of evidence (without extenuating details). Conclusions: This study identified guidance based on the preferences of guideline developers and evidence synthesis producers about the format of evidence synthesis summaries to support decision-making. Next steps involve developing and user-testing prototype formats through one-on-one semi-structured interviews to optimise evidence synthesis summaries and support decision-making.

show abstract

End‐user understanding of qualitative comparative analysis used within evidence synthesis: A mixed‐methods study

Cited by 2 publications

References 45 publications

Co-design workshops to develop evidence synthesis summary formats for use by clinical guideline development groups

Co-design workshops to develop evidence synthesis summary formats for use by clinical guideline development groups

Co-design workshops to develop evidence synthesis summary formats for use by clinical guideline development groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About