Cargando…

The process of developing evidence-based guidance in medicine and public health: a qualitative study of views from the inside

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 in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Atkins, Lou, Smith, Jonathan A, Kelly, Michael P, Michie, Susan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3846576/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24006933
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-101
_version_ 1782293449513369600
author Atkins, Lou
Smith, Jonathan A
Kelly, Michael P
Michie, Susan
author_facet Atkins, Lou
Smith, Jonathan A
Kelly, Michael P
Michie, Susan
author_sort Atkins, Lou
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3846576
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38465762013-12-03 The process of developing evidence-based guidance in medicine and public health: a qualitative study of views from the inside Atkins, Lou Smith, Jonathan A Kelly, Michael P Michie, Susan Implement Sci Research 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. BioMed Central 2013-09-04 /pmc/articles/PMC3846576/ /pubmed/24006933 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-101 Text en Copyright © 2013 Atkins 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 Research
Atkins, Lou
Smith, Jonathan A
Kelly, Michael P
Michie, Susan
The process of developing evidence-based guidance in medicine and public health: a qualitative study of views from the inside
title The process of developing evidence-based guidance in medicine and public health: a qualitative study of views from the inside
title_full The process of developing evidence-based guidance in medicine and public health: a qualitative study of views from the inside
title_fullStr The process of developing evidence-based guidance in medicine and public health: a qualitative study of views from the inside
title_full_unstemmed The process of developing evidence-based guidance in medicine and public health: a qualitative study of views from the inside
title_short The process of developing evidence-based guidance in medicine and public health: a qualitative study of views from the inside
title_sort process of developing evidence-based guidance in medicine and public health: a qualitative study of views from the inside
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3846576/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24006933
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-101
work_keys_str_mv AT atkinslou theprocessofdevelopingevidencebasedguidanceinmedicineandpublichealthaqualitativestudyofviewsfromtheinside
AT smithjonathana theprocessofdevelopingevidencebasedguidanceinmedicineandpublichealthaqualitativestudyofviewsfromtheinside
AT kellymichaelp theprocessofdevelopingevidencebasedguidanceinmedicineandpublichealthaqualitativestudyofviewsfromtheinside
AT michiesusan theprocessofdevelopingevidencebasedguidanceinmedicineandpublichealthaqualitativestudyofviewsfromtheinside
AT atkinslou processofdevelopingevidencebasedguidanceinmedicineandpublichealthaqualitativestudyofviewsfromtheinside
AT smithjonathana processofdevelopingevidencebasedguidanceinmedicineandpublichealthaqualitativestudyofviewsfromtheinside
AT kellymichaelp processofdevelopingevidencebasedguidanceinmedicineandpublichealthaqualitativestudyofviewsfromtheinside
AT michiesusan processofdevelopingevidencebasedguidanceinmedicineandpublichealthaqualitativestudyofviewsfromtheinside