Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 97, Issue , 2018, Pages 39-48

  Harris, Janet L ^a   Booth, Andrew ^a   Cargo, Margaret ^b   Hannes, Karin ^c   Harden, Angela ^d   Flemming, Kate ^e   Garside, Ruth ^f   Pantoja, Tomas ^g   Thomas, James ^h   Noyes, Jane ⁱ  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EAST LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF EXETER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^g PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

^h UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cochrane collaboration; Methods; Protocol development; Qualitative evidence synthesis; Question formulation; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COCHRANE LIBRARY; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; ECONOMIC MODEL; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH EQUITY; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; LOGIC; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRAM APPROPRIATENESS; PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE;

DECISION MAKING; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85040533732     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.023     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Harris, J., Chapter 2: using qualitative research to develop robust effectiveness questions and protocols for Cochrane systematic reviews. Noyes, J., Booth, A., Hannes, K., Harden, A., Harris, J., Lewin, S., et al. (eds.) Supplementary guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2011, Cochrane Qualitative & Implementation Methods Group Version 1. Available at http://methods.cochrane.org/qi/supplemental-handbook-guidance. Accessed August 2011.
2. Booth, A., Chapter 3: searching for studies. Noyes, J., Booth, A., Hannes, K., Harden, A., Harris, J., Lewin, S., et al. (eds.) Supplementary guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2011, Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group Version 1. Available at http://methods.cochrane.org/qi/supplemental-handbook-guidance. Accessed August 2011.
3. Cochrane Qualitative & Implementation Methods Group. Chapter 1: preparing a protocol for Cochrane intervention reviews including qualitative research. Noyes, J., Booth, A., Hannes, K., Harden, A., Harris, J., Lewin, S., et al. (eds.) Supplementary guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2011, Cochrane Qualitative & Implementation Methods Group Version 1. Available at http://methods.cochrane.org/qi/supplemental-handbook-guidance. Accessed August 2011.
4. Hessels, L.K., Van Lente, H., Re-thinking new knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda. Res Pol 37:4 (2008), 740–760.
5. Lavis, J., Davies, H., Oxman, A., Denis, J.-L., Golden-Biddle, K., Ferlie, E., Towards systematic reviews that inform healthcare management and policy-making. J Health Services Res Policy 10:Suppl 1 (2005), 35–48.
6. Coemans,S., Wang Q., Hannes, K. 2015 The ultimate irony of developing an a priori review protocol for studying the literature on arts-based research methods in the area of community-based research. 3rd Conference on Arts Based Research and Artistic Research, Porto, Portugal, 28-29 January 2015.
7. Leeuw, F.L., Reconstructing program theories: methods available and problems to be solved. Am J Eval 24:1 (2003), 5–20.
8. Kingdon, J.W., Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 1984, Little, Brown, Boston.
9. Stone, D.A., Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Polit Sci Q 104:2 (1989), 281–300.
10. Peerally, M.F., Carr, S., Waring, J., Dixon-Woods, M., The problem with root cause analysis. BMJ Qual Saf 26 (2017), 417–422.
11. Rwashana, A.S., Nakubulwa, S., Nakakeeto-Kijjambu, M., Adam, T., Advancing the application of systems thinking in health: understanding the dynamics of neonatal mortality in Uganda. Health Res Policy Syst, 12(1), 2014, 36.
12. SURE Collaboration, 2011. SURE Guides for preparing and using evidence-based policy briefs: 3. Clarifying the problem. Version 2.1 [updated November 2011], 2011, The SURE Collaboration Available at http://www.who.int/evidence/sure/guides Accessed July 27, 2017.
13. Booth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Gerhardus, A., Wahlster, P., van der Wilt, G.J., et al. Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. 2016 [Online]. Available at http://www.integrate-hta.eu/downloads/ Accessed July 27, 2017.
14. Campbell, M., Egan, M., Lorenc, T., Bond, L., Popham, F., Fenton, C., et al. Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health. Syst Rev 3:1 (2014), 1–11.
15. Campbell, N.C., Murray, E., Darbyshire, J., Emery, J., Farmer, A., Griffiths, F., et al. Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. BMJ 334 (2007), 455–459.
16. Rohwer, A., Booth, A., Pfadenhauer, L., Brereton, L., Gerhardus, A., Mozygemba, K., et al. Guidance on the use of logic models in health technology assessments of complex interventions. 2016 [Online]. Available at http://www.integrate-hta.eu/downloads/ Accessed July 27, 2017.
17. Petticrew, M., Time to rethink the systematic review catechism? Moving from ‘what works’ to ‘what happens’. Syst Rev, 4(1), 2015, 1.
18. Hannes, K., Building a case for mixed method reviews. Richards, D.A., Hallberg, I.R., (eds.) Complex interventions in health: an overview of research methods, 2015, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon.
19. Marshall, M.N., Bridging the ivory towers and the swampy lowlands; increasing the impact of health services research on quality improvement. Int J Qual Health Care 26 (2014), 1–5.
20. Heyvaert, M., Hannes, K., Onghena, P., Using mixed methods research synthesis for literature reviews. 2016, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
21. Oliver, K., Rees, R., Brady, L.M., Kavanagh, J., Oliver, S., Thomas, J., Broadening public participation in systematic reviews: a case example involving young people in two configurative reviews. Res Synth Methods 6 (2015), 206–217.
22. Rycroft-Malone, J., McCormack, B., Hutchinson, A.M., DeCorby, K., Bucknall, T.K., Kent, B., et al. Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Implementation Sci, 7, 2012, 33.
23. Harris, J., Croot, L., Thompson, J., Springett, J., How stakeholder participation can contribute to systematic reviews of complex interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health, 70, 2016, 207.
24. Baxter, S., Killoran, A., Kelly, M.P., Goyder, E., Synthesizing diverse evidence: the use of primary qualitative data analysis methods and logic models in public health reviews. Public Health 124:2 (2010), 99–106.
25. Garside, R., Pearson, M., Moxham, T., What influences the uptake of information to prevent skin cancer? A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Educ Res 25:1 (2010), 162–182.
26. Anderson, L.M., Petticrew, M., Rehfuess, E., Armstrong, R., Ueffing, E., Baker, P., et al. Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods 2:1 (2011), 33–42.
27. Allmark, P., Baxter, S., Goyder, E., Guillaume, L., Crofton-Martin, G., Assessing the health benefits of advice services: using research evidence and logic model methods to explore complex pathways. Health Social Care Community 21:1 (2013), 59–68.
28. Baxter, S.K., Blank, L., Woods, H.B., Payne, N., Rimmer, M., Goyder, E., Using logic model methods in systematic review synthesis: describing complex pathways in referral management interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol, 14, 2014, 1.
29. De Buck, E., Hannes, K., Van Remoortel, H., Govender, T., Vande Veegaete, A., Musekiwa, A., et al. Protocol: approaches to promote sanitation and handwashing behaviour change in low- and middle income countries: a mixed method systematic review. Campbell systematic reviews. 2016 Available at http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/library/download/1_b569177e8a74aab8403f670a0aef229e.html. (Accessed 22 October 2016)
30. Mosler, H.J., A systematic approach to behaviour change interventions for the water and sanitation sector in developing countries: a conceptual model, a review, and a guideline. Int J Environ Health Res 22:5 (2012), 431–449.
31. O'Neill, J., Tabish, H., Welch, V., Petticrew, M., Pottie, K., Clarke, M., et al. Applying an equity lens to interventions: using PROGRESS ensures consideration of socially stratifying factors to illuminate inequities in health. J Clin Epidemiol 67 (2014), 56–64.
32. Cargo, M., Stankov, I., Thomas, J., Saini, M., Rogers, P., Mayo-Wilson, E., et al. Development, inter-rater reliability and feasibility of a checklist to assess implementation (Ch-IMP) in systematic reviews: the case of provider-based prevention and treatment programs targeting children and youth. BMC Med Res Methodol, 15, 2015, 73.
33. Rogers, P.J., Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation 2008:14 (2008), 29–48.
34. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Pawson R, Development of methodological guidance, publication standards and training materials for realist and meta-narrative reviews: the RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses – Evolving Standards) project. Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.30, 2014.
35. Rycroft-Malone, J., Kitson, A., Harvey, G., McCormack, B., Seers, K., Titchen, A., et al. Ingredients for change: revisiting a conceptual framework. Qual Saf Health Care 11:2 (2002), 174–180.
36. 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, 12(10), 2015, e1001895.
37. Pfadenhauer, L.M., Mozygemba, K., Gerhardus, A., Hofmann, B., Booth, A., Lysdahl, K.B., et al. Context and implementation: a concept analysis towards conceptual maturity. Z für Evidenz, Fortbildung Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 109:2 (2015), 103–114.
38. Hannes, K., Harden, A., Multi-context versus context-specific qualitative evidence syntheses: combining the best of both. Res Synth Methods 2 (2011), 271–278.
39. Pearson, A., Wiechula, R., Court, A., Lockwood, C., The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare. Int J Evidence-Based Healthc 3:8 (2005), 207–215.
40. Welch, V.A., Petticrew, M., O'Neill, J., Waters, E., Armstrong, R., Bhutta, Z.A., et al. Health equity: evidence synthesis and knowledge translation methods. Systematic reviews, 2(1), 2013, 1.
41. Rashidian, A., Shakibazadeh, E., Karimi-Shahanjarini, A., Glenton, C., Noyes, J., Lewin, S., et al. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of doctor-nurse substitution strategies in primary care: qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(2), 2013, 10.1002/14651858.CD010412.
42. Booth, A., Sutton, A., Papaioannou, D., Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review. 2nd ed., 2016, Sage, London.
43. Glenton, C., Lewin, S., Scheel, I.B., Still too little qualitative research to shed light on results from reviews of effectiveness trials: a case study of a Cochrane review on the use of lay health workers. Implement Sci, 6(1), 2011, 53.
44. Noyes, J., Hendry, M., Lewin, S., Glenton, C., Chandler, J., Rashidian, A., Qualitative “trial-sibling” studies and“ unrelated” qualitative studies contributed to complex intervention reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 74 (2016), 133–143.
45. Noyes, J., Hendry, M., Booth, A., Chandler, J., Lewin, S., Glenton, C., et al. Current use and Cochrane guidance on selection of social theories for systematic reviews of complex interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 75 (2016), 78–92.
46. Lorenc, T., Pearson, M., Jamal, F., Cooper, C., Garside, R., The role of systematic reviews of qualitative evidence in evaluating interventions: a case study. Res Synth Methods 3 (2012), 1–10.
47. Oliver S, Kavanagh J, Caird J, Lorenc T, Oliver K, Harden A. et al. Health promotion, inequalities and young people's health: a systematic review of research. 2008. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
48. Pfadenhauer, L., Rohwer, A., Burns, J., Booth, A., Lysdahl, K.B., Hofmann, B., et al. Guidance for the assessment of context and implementation in health technology assessments (HTA) and systematic reviews of complex interventions: the context and implementation of complex interventions (CICI) framework [online]. Available at http://www.integrate-hta.eu/downloads/, 2016 Accessed July 27, 2017.
49. Stansfield, C., Brunton, G., Rees, R., Search wide, dig deep: literature searching for qualitative research. An analysis of the publication formats and information sources used for four systematic reviews in public health. Res Synth Methods 5 (2014), 142–151.
50. Papaioannou, D., Sutton, A., Carroll, C., Booth, A., Wong, R., Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: consideration of a range of search techniques. Health Inf Libraries J 27:2 (2010), 114–122.
51. Hessels, L.K., Van Lente, H., Smits, R., In search of relevance: the changing contract between science and society. Sci Public Policy 36:5 (2009), 387–401.
52. Booth, A., Harris, J., Croot, E., Springett, J., Campbell, F., Wilkins, E., Towards a methodology for cluster searching to provide conceptual and contextual “richness” for systematic reviews of complex interventions: case study (CLUSTER). BMC Med Res Methodol, 13, 2013, 118.
53. Lorenc, T., Clayton, S., Neary, D., Whitehead, M., Petticrew, M., Thomson, H., et al. Crime, fear of crime, environment, and mental health and wellbeing: mapping review of theories and causal pathways. Health & Place 18:4 (2012), 757–765.
54. Booth, A., Carroll, C., Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable?. Health Inf Libraries J 32:3 (2015), 220–235.
55. Pound, P., Campbell, R., Locating and applying sociological theories of risk-taking to develop public health interventions for adolescents. Health Sociol Rev 24:1 (2015), 64–80.
56. Finfgeld-Connett, D., Johnson, E.D., Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. J Adv Nurs 69 (2013), 194–204.
57. Barroso, J., Gollop, C.J., Sandelowski, M., Meynell, J., Pearce, P.F., Collins, L.J., The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies. West J Nurs Res 25:2 (2003), 153–178.
58. Booth, A., Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review. Syst Rev, 5, 2016, 74.
59. Flemming, K., Briggs, M., Electronic searching to locate qualitative research: evaluation of three strategies. J Adv Nurs 57 (2007), 95–100.
60. Gorecki, C.A., Brown, J.M., Briggs, M., Nixon, J., Evaluation of five search strategies in retrieving qualitative patient-reported electronic data on the impact of pressure ulcers on quality of life. J Adv Nurs 66 (2010), 645–652.
61. Pearson, M., Moxham, T., Ashton, K., Effectiveness of search strategies for qualitative research about barriers and facilitators of program delivery. Eval Health professions 34:3 (2011), 297–308.
62. Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S., Craig, J., Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol, 12, 2012, 1.
63. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8:5 (2010), 336–341.
64. Booth, A., “Brimful of STARLITE”: toward standards for reporting literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc 94 (2006), 421–429.
65. Shaw, R.L., Conducting literature reviews. Forrester, M.A., (eds.) Doing qualitative research in psychology: A practical guide, 2010, Sage, London, 39–56.
66. Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., Producing a systematic review. Buchanan, D.A., Bryman, A., (eds.) The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods, 2009, SAGE Publications Ltd, London.
67. Major, C.H., Savin-Baden, M., Designing the synthesis. Major, C.H., Savin-Baden, M., (eds.) An introduction to qualitative research synthesis: managing the information explosion in social science research, 2010, Routledge, London, 43–55.
68. Stern, C., Jordan, Z., McArthur, A., Developing the review question and inclusion criteria. Am J Nurs 114:4 (2014), 53–56.
69. Petticrew, M., Roberts, H., How to find the studies: the literature search. Petticrew, M., Roberts, H., (eds.) Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide, 2006, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
70. Booth, A., Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice. Libr Hi Tech 24:3 (2006), 355–368.
71. Cooke, A., Smith, D., Booth, A., Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res 22 (2012), 1435–1443.
72. Jordan, J., Rose, L., Dainty, K.N., Noyes, J., Clarke, S., Blackwood, B., Factors that impact on the use of mechanical ventilation weaning protocols in critically ill adults and children: a qualitative evidence-synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(7), 2015, 10.1002/14651858.CD009851.pub2.
73. Stansfield, C., Kavanagh, J., Rees, R., Gomersall, A., Thomas, J., The selection of search sources influences the findings of a systematic review of people's views: a case study in public health. BMC Med Res Methodol, 12(1), 2012, 1.
74. Ravitch, S.M., Riggan, M., Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research. 2016, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
75. Husk, K., Lovell, R., Cooper, C., Garside, R., Participation in environmental enhancement and conservation activities for health and well-being in adults (Protocol). Cochrane Database Syst Rev(2), 2013, 10.1002/14651858.CD010351.
76. Hurley, M., Dickson, K., Walsh, N., Hauari, H., Grant, R., Cumming, J., et al. Exercise interventions and patient beliefs for people with chronic hip and knee pain: a mixed methods review (Protocol). Cochrane Database Syst Rev(12), 2013, CD010842.
77. Bohren, M.A., Munthe-Kaas, H., Berger, B.O., Allanson, E.E., Tunçalp, Ö., Perceptions and experiences of labour companionship: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(12), 2016, 10.1002/14651858.CD012449.
78. SURE Collaboration, 2011. SURE Guides for preparing and using evidence-based policy briefs: 5. Identifying and addressing barriers to implementing policy options. Version 2.1 [updated November 2011], 2011, The SURE Collaboration Available at http://www.who.int/evidence/sure/guides.
79. Guyatt, G.H., Oxman, A.D., Vist, G.E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336 (2008), 924–926.
80. Downe, S., Finlayson, K., Tunçalp, Ö., Gülmezoglu, A.M., Factors that influence the uptake of routine antenatal services by pregnant women: a qualitative evidence synthesis (Protocol). Cochrane Database Syst Rev(10), 2016, CD012392.