Browsing by Subject "Evidence-based practice"

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series
    (BioMed Central, 2018-01-25) Lewin, Simon; Booth, Andrew; Glenton, Claire; Munthe-Kaas, Heather; Rashidian, Arash; Wainwright, Megan; Bohren, Meghan A; Tunçalp, Özge; Colvin, Christopher J; Garside, Ruth; Carlsen, Benedicte; Langlois, Etienne V; Noyes, Jane
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data
    (BioMed Central, 2018-01-25) Noyes, Jane; Booth, Andrew; Lewin, Simon; Carlsen, Benedicte; Glenton, Claire; Colvin, Christopher J; Garside, Ruth; Bohren, Meghan A; Rashidian, Arash; Wainwright, Megan; Tunςalp, Özge; Chandler, Jacqueline; Flottorp, Signe; Pantoja, Tomas; Tucker, Joseph D; Munthe-Kaas, Heather
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 2: how to make an overall CERQual assessment of confidence and create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table
    (BioMed Central, 2018-01-25) Lewin, Simon; Bohren, Meghan; Rashidian, Arash; Munthe-Kaas, Heather; Glenton, Claire; Colvin, Christopher J; Garside, Ruth; Noyes, Jane; Booth, Andrew; Tunçalp, Özge; Wainwright, Megan; Flottorp, Signe; Tucker, Joseph D; Carlsen, Benedicte
    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 making an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding and creating a CERQual Evidence Profile and a CERQual Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Methods: We developed this guidance by examining the methods used by other GRADE approaches, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We then piloted the guidance on several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the approach. Results: Confidence in the evidence is an assessment of the extent to which a review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. Creating a summary of each review finding and deciding whether or not CERQual should be used are important steps prior to assessing confidence. Confidence should be assessed for each review finding individually, based on the judgements made for each of the four CERQual components. Four levels are used to describe the overall assessment of confidence: high, moderate, low or very low. The overall CERQual assessment for each review finding should be explained in a CERQual Evidence Profile and Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Conclusions: Structuring and summarising review findings, assessing confidence in those findings using CERQual and creating a CERQual Evidence Profile and Summary of Qualitative Findings table should be essential components of undertaking qualitative evidence syntheses. This paper describes the end point of a CERQual assessment and should be read in conjunction with the other papers in the series that provide information on assessing individual CERQual components.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 3: how to assess methodological limitations
    (BioMed Central, 2018-01-25) Munthe-Kaas, Heather; Bohren, Meghan A; Glenton, Claire; Lewin, Simon; Noyes, Jane; Tunçalp, Özge; Booth, Andrew; Garside, Ruth; Colvin, Christopher J; Wainwright, Megan; Rashidian, Arash; Flottorp, Signe; Carlsen, Benedicte
    Abstract 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 methodological limitations component. Methods We developed the methodological limitations component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual methodological limitations component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application. Results When applying CERQual, we define methodological limitations as the extent to which there are concerns about the design or conduct of the primary studies that contributed evidence to an individual review finding. In this paper, we describe the methodological limitations component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess methodological limitations of a review finding as part of the CERQual approach. This guidance outlines the information required to assess methodological limitations component, the steps that need to be taken to assess methodological limitations of data contributing to a review finding and examples of methodological limitation assessments. Conclusions This paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of methodological limitations in the context of the CERQual approach. More work is needed to determine which criteria critical appraisal tools should include when assessing methodological limitations. We currently recommend that whichever tool is used, review authors provide a transparent description of their assessments of methodological limitations in a review finding. We expect the CERQual approach and its individual components to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 4: how to assess coherence
    (BioMed Central, 2018-01-25) Colvin, Christopher J; Garside, Ruth; Wainwright, Megan; Munthe-Kaas, Heather; Glenton, Claire; Bohren, Meghan A; Carlsen, Benedicte; Tunçalp, Özge; Noyes, Jane; Booth, Andrew; Rashidian, Arash; Flottorp, Signe; Lewin, Simon
    Background: The GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and EvaluationConfidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE 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) relevance, (3) coherence and (4) adequacy of data. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on CERQual’s coherence component. Methods: We developed the coherence component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual coherence component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application. Results: When applying CERQual, we define coherence as how clear and cogent the fit is between the data from the primary studies and a review finding that synthesises that data. In this paper, we describe the coherence component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess coherence in the context of a review finding as part of the CERQual approach. This guidance outlines the information required to assess coherence, the steps that need to be taken to assess coherence and examples of coherence assessments. Conclusions: This paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of coherence in the context of the CERQual approach. We suggest that threats to coherence may arise when the data supporting a review finding are contradictory, ambiguous or incomplete or where competing theories exist that could be used to synthesise the data. We expect the CERQual approach, and its individual components, to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 5: how to assess adequacy of data
    (BioMed Central, 2018-01-25) Glenton, Claire; Carlsen, Benedicte; Lewin, Simon; Munthe-Kaas, Heather; Colvin, Christopher J; Tunçalp, Özge; Bohren, Meghan A; Noyes, Jane; Booth, Andrew; Garside, Ruth; Rashidian, Arash; Flottorp, Signe; Wainwright, Megan
    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 adequacy of data component. Methods: We developed the adequacy of data component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual adequacy of data component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application. Results: When applying CERQual, we define adequacy of data as an overall determination of the degree of richness and the quantity of data supporting a review finding. In this paper, we describe the adequacy component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess data adequacy in the context of a review finding as part of the CERQual approach. This guidance outlines the information required to assess data adequacy, the steps that need to be taken to assess data adequacy, and examples of adequacy assessments. Conclusions: This paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of adequacy in the context of the CERQual approach. We approach assessments of data adequacy in terms of the richness and quantity of the data supporting each review finding, but do not offer fixed rules regarding what constitutes sufficiently rich data or an adequate quantity of data. Instead, we recommend that this assessment is made in relation to the nature of the finding. We expect the CERQual approach, and its individual components, to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Comparison of an interactive with a didactic educational intervention for improving the evidence-based practice knowledge of occupational therapists in the public health sector in South Africa: a randomised controlled trial
    (2014-06-10) Buchanan, Helen; Siegfried, Nandi; Jelsma, Jennifer; Lombard, Carl
    Abstract Background Despite efforts to identify effective interventions to implement evidence-based practice (EBP), uncertainty remains. Few existing studies involve occupational therapists or resource-constrained contexts. This study aimed to determine whether an interactive educational intervention (IE) was more effective than a didactic educational intervention (DE) in improving EBP knowledge, attitudes and behaviour at 12 weeks. Methods A matched pairs design, randomised controlled trial was conducted in the Western Cape of South Africa. Occupational therapists employed by the Department of Health were randomised using matched-pair stratification by type (clinician or manager) and knowledge score. Allocation to an IE or a DE was by coin-tossing. A self-report questionnaire (measuring objective knowledge and subjective attitudes) and audit checklist (measuring objective behaviour) were completed at baseline and 12 weeks. The primary outcome was EBP knowledge at 12 weeks while secondary outcomes were attitudes and behaviour at 12 weeks. Data collection occurred at participants’ places of employment. Audit raters were blinded, but participants and the provider could not be blinded. Results Twenty-one of 28 pairs reported outcomes, but due to incomplete data for two participants, 19 pairs were included in the analysis. There was a median increase of 1.0 points (95% CI = -4.0, 1.0) in the IE for the primary outcome (knowledge) compared with the DE, but this difference was not significant (P = 0.098). There were no significant differences on any of the attitude subscale scores. The median 12-week audit score was 8.6 points higher in the IE (95% CI = -7.7, 27.0) but this was not significant (P = 0.196). Within-group analyses showed significant increases in knowledge in both groups (IE: T = 4.0, P <0.001; DE: T = 12.0, P = 0.002) but no significant differences in attitudes or behaviour. Conclusions The results suggest that the interventions had similar outcomes at 12 weeks and that the interactive component had little additional effect. Trial registration Pan African Controlled Trials Register PACTR201201000346141 , registered 31 January 2012. Clinical Trials NCT01512823 , registered 1 February 2012. South African National Clinical Trial Register DOH2710093067 , registered 27 October 2009. The first participants were randomly assigned on 16 July 2008.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Implementation of the physical function ICU test tool in a resource constrained intensive care unit to promote early mobilisation of critically ill patients- a feasibility study
    (BioMed Central, 2016-10-19) Tadyanemhandu, Cathrine; Manie, Shamila
    Background: The shift of focus in outcome measures from mortality to assessment of functional status in intensive care unit (ICU) patients has resulted in the emergence of mobilisation of critically ill patients as a standard physiotherapy practice in most medium and high income countries. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of an early mobilisation program and to report on the changes in patient clinical outcomes following the intervention in a low income country. Methods: A prospective cohort study was carried out at one public hospital. An adult cohort of 35 patients was recruited within 24 h of being admitted into the unit, irrespective of ventilation method over a period of three months. An early mobilisation programme was implemented and prescribed using the Physical Function ICU Test (PFIT-s) which commenced in either the ICU or high dependent unit. Results: The median age of the 35 patients was 29 years (IQR = 24–45 years). More than half of the patients had undergone surgery due to either gastrointestinal problems or obstetrical complications. A total of 94 out of a possible of 219 exercise sessions were delivered to the patients (43.0 %). The tool was implemented in 32 (91.4 %) patients on the initial PFIT-s measurement and 16 (45.7 %) of the patients required the assistance of two people to stand. The Initial PFIT-s mean score was 5.3 ± 1.8. On final PFIT-s measurement, out of the 30 (85.7 %) patients seen, 15 (42.9 %) of the patients did not require any assistance to stand and the final PFIT-s mean score was 7.0 ± 1.9. There was a significant difference in both the initial PFIT-s total score (t-value = 2.34, df = 30, p = .03) and the final PFIT-s score (t-value = 3.66, df = 28, p = .001) between males and females. During the treatment, no adverse event occurred in any of the patients. Conclusion: An early mobilisation program using PFIT-s was feasible and safe. There was a difference in functional capability based on gender, with males being more functionally active. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria can lead to a delayed early mobilisation activities in ICU patients.