Cargando…

Turning evidence into recommendations: Protocol of a study guideline development groups

BACKGROUND: Health care practice based on research evidence requires that evidence is synthesised, and that recommendations based on this evidence are implemented. It also requires an intermediate step: translating synthesised evidence into practice recommendations. There is considerable literature...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Michie, Susan, Berentson-Shaw, Jessica, Pilling, Stephen, Feder, Gene, Dieppe, Paul, Raine, Rosalind, Cluzeau, Francoise, Alderson, Phil, Ellis, Simon
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031892/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17803806
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-2-29
_version_ 1782136802294890496
author Michie, Susan
Berentson-Shaw, Jessica
Pilling, Stephen
Feder, Gene
Dieppe, Paul
Raine, Rosalind
Cluzeau, Francoise
Alderson, Phil
Ellis, Simon
author_facet Michie, Susan
Berentson-Shaw, Jessica
Pilling, Stephen
Feder, Gene
Dieppe, Paul
Raine, Rosalind
Cluzeau, Francoise
Alderson, Phil
Ellis, Simon
author_sort Michie, Susan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Health care practice based on research evidence requires that evidence is synthesised, and that recommendations based on this evidence are implemented. It also requires an intermediate step: translating synthesised evidence into practice recommendations. There is considerable literature on evidence synthesis and implementation, but little on how guideline development groups (GDGs) produce recommendations. This is a complex process, with many influences on communication and decision-making, e.g., the quality of evidence, methods of presentation, practical/resource constraints, individual values, professional and scientific interests, social and psychological processes. To make this process more transparent and potentially effective, we need to understand these influences. Psychological theories of decision-making and social influence provide a framework for this understanding. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the processes by which GDGs formulate recommendations, drawing on psychological theories of decision-making and social influence. The findings will potentially inform the further evolution of GDG methods, such as choice of members and procedures for presenting evidence, conducting discussion and formulating recommendations. METHODS: Longitudinal observation of the meetings of three National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) GDGs, one from each of acute, mental health and public health, will be tape recorded and transcribed. Interviews with a sample of GDG members at the beginning, middle, and end of the GDG's work will be recorded and transcribed. Site documents including relevant e-mail interchanges, GDG meeting minutes, and stakeholders' responses to the drafts of the recommendations will be collected. Data will be selected for analysis if they refer to either evidence or recommendations; the focus is on "hot spots", e.g., dilemmas, conflicts, and uncertainty. Data will be analysed thematically and by content analysis, drawing on psychological theories of decision-making and social influence.
format Text
id pubmed-2031892
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2007
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-20318922007-10-17 Turning evidence into recommendations: Protocol of a study guideline development groups Michie, Susan Berentson-Shaw, Jessica Pilling, Stephen Feder, Gene Dieppe, Paul Raine, Rosalind Cluzeau, Francoise Alderson, Phil Ellis, Simon Implement Sci Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Health care practice based on research evidence requires that evidence is synthesised, and that recommendations based on this evidence are implemented. It also requires an intermediate step: translating synthesised evidence into practice recommendations. There is considerable literature on evidence synthesis and implementation, but little on how guideline development groups (GDGs) produce recommendations. This is a complex process, with many influences on communication and decision-making, e.g., the quality of evidence, methods of presentation, practical/resource constraints, individual values, professional and scientific interests, social and psychological processes. To make this process more transparent and potentially effective, we need to understand these influences. Psychological theories of decision-making and social influence provide a framework for this understanding. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the processes by which GDGs formulate recommendations, drawing on psychological theories of decision-making and social influence. The findings will potentially inform the further evolution of GDG methods, such as choice of members and procedures for presenting evidence, conducting discussion and formulating recommendations. METHODS: Longitudinal observation of the meetings of three National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) GDGs, one from each of acute, mental health and public health, will be tape recorded and transcribed. Interviews with a sample of GDG members at the beginning, middle, and end of the GDG's work will be recorded and transcribed. Site documents including relevant e-mail interchanges, GDG meeting minutes, and stakeholders' responses to the drafts of the recommendations will be collected. Data will be selected for analysis if they refer to either evidence or recommendations; the focus is on "hot spots", e.g., dilemmas, conflicts, and uncertainty. Data will be analysed thematically and by content analysis, drawing on psychological theories of decision-making and social influence. BioMed Central 2007-09-05 /pmc/articles/PMC2031892/ /pubmed/17803806 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-2-29 Text en Copyright © 2007 Michie et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Michie, Susan
Berentson-Shaw, Jessica
Pilling, Stephen
Feder, Gene
Dieppe, Paul
Raine, Rosalind
Cluzeau, Francoise
Alderson, Phil
Ellis, Simon
Turning evidence into recommendations: Protocol of a study guideline development groups
title Turning evidence into recommendations: Protocol of a study guideline development groups
title_full Turning evidence into recommendations: Protocol of a study guideline development groups
title_fullStr Turning evidence into recommendations: Protocol of a study guideline development groups
title_full_unstemmed Turning evidence into recommendations: Protocol of a study guideline development groups
title_short Turning evidence into recommendations: Protocol of a study guideline development groups
title_sort turning evidence into recommendations: protocol of a study guideline development groups
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031892/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17803806
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-2-29
work_keys_str_mv AT michiesusan turningevidenceintorecommendationsprotocolofastudyguidelinedevelopmentgroups
AT berentsonshawjessica turningevidenceintorecommendationsprotocolofastudyguidelinedevelopmentgroups
AT pillingstephen turningevidenceintorecommendationsprotocolofastudyguidelinedevelopmentgroups
AT federgene turningevidenceintorecommendationsprotocolofastudyguidelinedevelopmentgroups
AT dieppepaul turningevidenceintorecommendationsprotocolofastudyguidelinedevelopmentgroups
AT rainerosalind turningevidenceintorecommendationsprotocolofastudyguidelinedevelopmentgroups
AT cluzeaufrancoise turningevidenceintorecommendationsprotocolofastudyguidelinedevelopmentgroups
AT aldersonphil turningevidenceintorecommendationsprotocolofastudyguidelinedevelopmentgroups
AT ellissimon turningevidenceintorecommendationsprotocolofastudyguidelinedevelopmentgroups