The conduct of policy relevant systematic reviews including qualitative research: a framework for good practice

Article type
Authors
Garside R1
1PenTAG, Peninsula Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Abstract
Background: The pressure for policy making in health and social care to be evidence-based continues to grow. From a narrow focus on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs, it is increasingly recognised that such limited focus provides answers to limited kinds of questions. Policy makers are increasingly aware that other types of study design, including non-randomised quantitative, and qualitative research, are required to provide the answers to questions such as why does this intervention work, how and for whom, as well as to assess the effectiveness of complex interventions. With this recognition is a drive to develop robust methods of synthesising such research, which can develop in the course of a project to respond to both the available literature and the needs of the policy maker. Objectives: To produce a good practice framework for reviewers and policy makers working together about producing systematic reviews that include qualitative research. Methods: Based on a critical review of 10 key suggested methods for systematically reviewing and synthesising qualitative research alone, or in combination with other non-randomised quantitative study designs, a Good Practice Framework for researchers and policy makers has been developed. Results: For key stages of a review – developing research question, scoping the review, identifying relevant literature, initial assessment of study reports, preliminary analysis and synthesis, full analysis and synthesis and dissemination – the framework offers suggestions for both methodological approaches and joint working between reviewer and policy makers. As the messages are largely process related, most can be used whichever specific mechanisms for synthesis is preferred. Conclusions: There is clear interest in robust yet flexible methods for reviewing a broad evidence base to inform policy making. This framework suggests that sufficient time, flexibility and responsiveness needs to be built into such reviews in order to maximise appropriateness, adaptability and rigour.