The process of developing evidence-based guidance in medicine and public health: a qualitative study of views from the inside
- PMID: 24006933
- PMCID: PMC3846576
- DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-101
The process of developing evidence-based guidance in medicine and public health: a qualitative study of views from the inside
Abstract
Background: There has been significant investment in developing guidelines to improve clinical and public health practice. Though much is known about the processes of evidence synthesis and evidence-based guidelines implementation, we know little about how evidence presented to advisory groups is interpreted and used to form practice recommendations or what happens where evidence is lacking. This study investigates how members of advisory groups of NICE (National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence) conceptualize evidence and experience the process.
Methods: Members of three advisory groups for acute physical, mental and public health were interviewed at the beginning and end of the life of the group. Seventeen were interviewed at both time points; five were interviewed just once at time one; and 17 were interviewed only once after guidance completion. Using thematic and content analysis, interview transcripts were analysed to identify the main themes.
Results: Three themes were identified:1. What is the task? Different members conceptualized the task differently; some emphasized the importance of evidence at the top of the quality hierarchy while others emphasized the importance of personal experience.2. Who gets heard? Managing the diversity of opinion and vested interests was a challenge for the groups; service users were valued and as was the importance of fostering good working relationships between group members.3. What is the process? Group members valued debate and recognized the need to marshal discussion; most members were satisfied with the process and output.
Conclusions: Evidence doesn't form recommendations on its own, but requires human judgement. Diversity of opinion within advisory groups was seen as key to making well-informed judgments relevant to forming recommendations. However, that diversity can bring tensions in the evaluation of evidence and its translation into practice recommendations.
Similar articles
-
Understanding and addressing factors affecting carers' mental health during end-of-life caregiving: synopsis of meta synthesis of literature and stakeholder collaboration.Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025 Feb;13(8):1-27. doi: 10.3310/RTHW8493. Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025. PMID: 39981757
-
Involving carer advisors in evidence synthesis to improve carers' mental health during end-of-life home care: co-production during COVID-19 remote working.Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2023 Oct;13(8):1-48. doi: 10.3310/TGHH6428. Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2023. PMID: 37902597
-
Informing a decision framework for when NICE should recommend the use of health technologies only in the context of an appropriately designed programme of evidence development.Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(46):1-323. doi: 10.3310/hta16460. Health Technol Assess. 2012. PMID: 23177626
-
Recommendations from the 2023 International Evidence-based Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome.Fertil Steril. 2023 Oct;120(4):767-793. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.07.025. Epub 2023 Aug 14. Fertil Steril. 2023. PMID: 37589624
-
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36321557 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Reaching beyond the review of research evidence: a qualitative study of decision making during the development of clinical practice guidelines for disease prevention in healthcare.BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 May 11;17(1):344. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2277-1. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017. PMID: 28490325 Free PMC article.
-
"Going into the black box": a policy analysis of how the World Health Organization uses evidence to inform guideline recommendations.Front Public Health. 2024 Mar 22;12:1292475. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1292475. eCollection 2024. Front Public Health. 2024. PMID: 38584925 Free PMC article.
-
Decision-making and evidence use during the process of prenatal record review in Canada: a multiphase qualitative study.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015 Mar 31;15:78. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0503-6. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015. PMID: 25881034 Free PMC article.
-
Exploring the transparency mechanism and evaluating the effect of public reporting on prescription: a protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.BMC Public Health. 2015 Mar 21;15:277. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1454-6. BMC Public Health. 2015. PMID: 25881035 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Mind the gap: Mapping variation between national and local clinical practice guidelines for acute paediatric asthma from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.PLoS One. 2022 May 17;17(5):e0267445. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267445. eCollection 2022. PLoS One. 2022. PMID: 35580117 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Daniels N. Just health: meeting health needs fairly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
-
- Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting limits fairly: learning to share resources for health. 2. Oxford: Oxford University press; 2008.
-
- Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Shekelle P, Schunemann HJ, Woolf S. Developing clinical practice guidelines: target audiences, identifying topics for guidelines, guideline group composition and functioning and conflicts of interest. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):60. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-60. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources