PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Guidelines depend on effect estimates, usually derived from randomised controlled trials, to inform their decisions. Qualitative research evidence may improve decisions made but where in the process and the methods to do this have not been so clearly established. We sought to describe and appraise how qualitative research has been used to inform World Heath Organization guidance since 2020.
METHODS: We conducted a document analysis of WHO guidelines from 2020 to 2022. We purposely sampled guidelines on the topics of maternal and newborn health (MANH) and infectious diseases, as most of the qualitative synthesis to date has been conducted on these topics, likely representing the \'best case\' scenario. We searched the in-built repository feature of the WHO website and used standardised search terms to identify qualitative reporting. Using deductive frameworks, we described how qualitative evidence was used to inform guidelines and appraised the standards of this use.
RESULTS: Of the 29 guidelines, over half used qualitative research to help guide decisions (18/29). A total of 8 of these used qualitative research to inform the guideline scope, all 18 to inform recommendations, and 1 to inform implementation considerations. All guidelines drew on qualitative evidence syntheses (QES), and five further supplemented this with primary qualitative research. Qualitative findings reported in guidelines were typically descriptive, identifying people\'s perception of the benefits and harms of interventions or logistical barriers and facilitators to programme success. No guideline provided transparent reporting of how qualitative research was interpreted and weighed used alongside other evidence when informing decisions, and only one guideline reported the inclusion of qualitative methods experts on the panel. Only a few guidelines contextualised their recommendations by indicating which populations and settings qualitative findings could be applied.
CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative research frequently informed WHO guideline decisions particularly in the field of MANH. However, the process often lacked transparency. We identified unmet potential in informing implementation considerations and contextualisation of the recommendations. Use in these areas needs further methods development.
METHODS: We conducted a document analysis of WHO guidelines from 2020 to 2022. We purposely sampled guidelines on the topics of maternal and newborn health (MANH) and infectious diseases, as most of the qualitative synthesis to date has been conducted on these topics, likely representing the \'best case\' scenario. We searched the in-built repository feature of the WHO website and used standardised search terms to identify qualitative reporting. Using deductive frameworks, we described how qualitative evidence was used to inform guidelines and appraised the standards of this use.
RESULTS: Of the 29 guidelines, over half used qualitative research to help guide decisions (18/29). A total of 8 of these used qualitative research to inform the guideline scope, all 18 to inform recommendations, and 1 to inform implementation considerations. All guidelines drew on qualitative evidence syntheses (QES), and five further supplemented this with primary qualitative research. Qualitative findings reported in guidelines were typically descriptive, identifying people\'s perception of the benefits and harms of interventions or logistical barriers and facilitators to programme success. No guideline provided transparent reporting of how qualitative research was interpreted and weighed used alongside other evidence when informing decisions, and only one guideline reported the inclusion of qualitative methods experts on the panel. Only a few guidelines contextualised their recommendations by indicating which populations and settings qualitative findings could be applied.
CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative research frequently informed WHO guideline decisions particularly in the field of MANH. However, the process often lacked transparency. We identified unmet potential in informing implementation considerations and contextualisation of the recommendations. Use in these areas needs further methods development.
摘要：
背景：指南取决于效果估计，通常来自随机对照试验，告知他们的决定。定性研究证据可能会改善所做的决策，但在此过程中的何处以及这样做的方法尚未明确。我们试图描述和评估自2020年以来定性研究如何用于指导世界卫生组织指南。
方法：我们对2020年至2022年的WHO指南进行了文件分析。我们特意抽取了有关孕产妇和新生儿健康（MANH）和传染病的指南，由于迄今为止大多数定性综合都是针对这些主题进行的，可能代表“最佳情况”场景。我们搜索了世卫组织网站的内置存储库功能，并使用标准化搜索词来识别定性报告。使用演绎框架，我们描述了定性证据如何用于指导指南,并评估了使用标准.
结果：在29个指南中，超过一半的人使用定性研究来帮助指导决策(18/29)。总共有8项使用定性研究来告知指南范围，所有18个通知建议，和1告知实施注意事项。所有指南都借鉴了定性证据综合(QES)，和五个进一步补充了主要的定性研究。指南中报告的定性结果通常是描述性的，确定人们对干预措施或后勤障碍和促进计划成功的好处和危害的看法。没有指南提供透明的报告，说明在告知决策时如何解释和权衡定性研究与其他证据。只有一份指南报告将定性方法专家纳入小组。只有少数准则通过指出可以应用哪些人群和环境定性发现来说明其建议。
结论：定性研究经常为WHO指南决定提供信息，特别是在MANH领域。然而,这个过程往往缺乏透明度。我们确定了在告知实施考虑因素和建议背景方面未实现的潜力。在这些领域的使用需要进一步的方法开发。
方法：我们对2020年至2022年的WHO指南进行了文件分析。我们特意抽取了有关孕产妇和新生儿健康（MANH）和传染病的指南，由于迄今为止大多数定性综合都是针对这些主题进行的，可能代表“最佳情况”场景。我们搜索了世卫组织网站的内置存储库功能，并使用标准化搜索词来识别定性报告。使用演绎框架，我们描述了定性证据如何用于指导指南,并评估了使用标准.
结果：在29个指南中，超过一半的人使用定性研究来帮助指导决策(18/29)。总共有8项使用定性研究来告知指南范围，所有18个通知建议，和1告知实施注意事项。所有指南都借鉴了定性证据综合(QES)，和五个进一步补充了主要的定性研究。指南中报告的定性结果通常是描述性的，确定人们对干预措施或后勤障碍和促进计划成功的好处和危害的看法。没有指南提供透明的报告，说明在告知决策时如何解释和权衡定性研究与其他证据。只有一份指南报告将定性方法专家纳入小组。只有少数准则通过指出可以应用哪些人群和环境定性发现来说明其建议。
结论：定性研究经常为WHO指南决定提供信息，特别是在MANH领域。然而,这个过程往往缺乏透明度。我们确定了在告知实施考虑因素和建议背景方面未实现的潜力。在这些领域的使用需要进一步的方法开发。
