Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: We were commissioned by the WHO to review the qualitative evidence on community and drug distributor perceptions and experiences of mass drug administration for the elimination of lymphatic filariasis, in the context of a guideline development process.
Objective: To present and discuss the methodological compromises taken during a rapid and their implications.
Method: We decided to stay as close to Cochrane methodology as possible but had to make compromises based on limited resources. These included single author screening, inclusion, data extraction, methodological assessments and analysis. We did not perform a GRADE-CERQual assessment. During the review process, the authors discussed the steps to be taken and compromises made.
Findings: The single author screening, inclusion and data extraction was fast. We discussed the included and full text excluded studies. This was a good approach as we had a specific topic and inclusion was mostly methodology not content related. Authors with content expertise were consulted if the first author was unsure. We decided on a framework analysis as we felt this would be faster than a thematic analysis as the topics of interest for the guidelines were specific. Single author data extraction and analysis was quick but also a potential challenge as placing the data in the framework and deciding on findings or themes was their responsibility. We did not perform a GRADE-CERQual assessment of our findings. Therefore, we decided to present them as key-messages and create simplified tables with the key-message, contributing studies and study quality. Finally, by using key-message tables instead of a GRADE-CERQual assessment, we delegated the responsibility of understanding and weighing the possible impact of methodological weaknesses to the guideline committee.
Conclusions: We were able to complete a rapid review of evidence quickly. This allowed qualitative data to be included in the guidelines process, something we feel was useful and important to decision-makers. However, the fact that the majority of the work was completed by a single author was seen as a possible limitation as potentially relevant issues could have been overlooked or underdeveloped. However, based on professional experience of our multidisciplinary team and we did not experience these limitations as compromising the final body of evidence. Nevertheless, guidelines development should be sensitive to methodological issues which could compromise the implementation of useful interventions.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: This abstract discusses a methodology that aims to include rich data in qualitative evidence synthesis with can provide a more detailed presentation of health consumers’ thoughts, opinions and experiences allowing synthesis authors to better interpret the meaning and context of findings presented in the primary studies.
Objective: To present and discuss the methodological compromises taken during a rapid and their implications.
Method: We decided to stay as close to Cochrane methodology as possible but had to make compromises based on limited resources. These included single author screening, inclusion, data extraction, methodological assessments and analysis. We did not perform a GRADE-CERQual assessment. During the review process, the authors discussed the steps to be taken and compromises made.
Findings: The single author screening, inclusion and data extraction was fast. We discussed the included and full text excluded studies. This was a good approach as we had a specific topic and inclusion was mostly methodology not content related. Authors with content expertise were consulted if the first author was unsure. We decided on a framework analysis as we felt this would be faster than a thematic analysis as the topics of interest for the guidelines were specific. Single author data extraction and analysis was quick but also a potential challenge as placing the data in the framework and deciding on findings or themes was their responsibility. We did not perform a GRADE-CERQual assessment of our findings. Therefore, we decided to present them as key-messages and create simplified tables with the key-message, contributing studies and study quality. Finally, by using key-message tables instead of a GRADE-CERQual assessment, we delegated the responsibility of understanding and weighing the possible impact of methodological weaknesses to the guideline committee.
Conclusions: We were able to complete a rapid review of evidence quickly. This allowed qualitative data to be included in the guidelines process, something we feel was useful and important to decision-makers. However, the fact that the majority of the work was completed by a single author was seen as a possible limitation as potentially relevant issues could have been overlooked or underdeveloped. However, based on professional experience of our multidisciplinary team and we did not experience these limitations as compromising the final body of evidence. Nevertheless, guidelines development should be sensitive to methodological issues which could compromise the implementation of useful interventions.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: This abstract discusses a methodology that aims to include rich data in qualitative evidence synthesis with can provide a more detailed presentation of health consumers’ thoughts, opinions and experiences allowing synthesis authors to better interpret the meaning and context of findings presented in the primary studies.