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

Implementation Science

Susan Michie¹  Michael P Kelly²  Jonathan A Smith³  Lou Atkins¹ 

[1] Research Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE), University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, UK;Centre for Public Health, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 10, Spring Gardens, London, SW1A 2BU, And Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK;Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck University of London, Malet St., London WC1E 7HX, UK

关键词: Qualitative;    NICE guidelines;    Evidence;    Content analysis;    Advisory groups;   

Others  :  813374
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-8-101

 received in 2013-05-10, accepted in 2013-08-30,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

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.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Atkins et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Daniels N: Just health: meeting health needs fairly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
• [2]Daniels N, Sabin JE: Setting limits fairly: learning to share resources for health. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University press; 2008.
• [3]Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Shekelle P, Schunemann HJ, Woolf S: Developing clinical practice guidelines: target audiences, identifying topics for guidelines, guideline group composition and functioning and conflicts of interest. Implement Sci 2012, 7(1):60. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Gardner B, Davidson R, McAteer J, Michie S: A method for studying decision-making by guideline development groups. Implement Sci 2009, 4:48. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Hopthrow T, Feder G, Michie S: The role of group decision making processes in the creation of clinical guidelines. Int Rev Psychiatry 2011, 23:358-364.
• [6]Michie S, Berentson-Shaw J, Pilling S, Dieppe P, Raine R, Cluzeau F, Alderson P, Ellis S, Feder G: Turning evidence into recommendations: protocol of a study guideline development groups. Implement Sci 2007, 2:29. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Kelly M, Morgan A, Ellis S, Younger T, Huntley J, Swann C: Evidence based public health: a review of the experience of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of developing public health guidance in England. Soc Sci Med 2010, 71(6):1056-1062.
• [8]Kelly MP, Moore T: The judgement process in evidence based medicine and health technology assessment. Social Theory and Health 2012, 10:1-19.
• [9]Raine R, Sanderson C, Black N: Developing clinical guidelines: a challenge to current methods. BMJ 2005, 17(331):631. 7517
• [10]Moreira T, May C, Mason J, Eccles M: A new method of analysis enabled a better understanding of clinical practice guideline development processes. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59(11):1199-1206.
• [11]Burgers JS, Bailey JV, Klazinga NS, Van der Bij AK, Grol R, Feder G: Inside guidelines: comparative analysis of recommendations and evidence in diabetes guidelines from 13 countries. Diabetes Care 2002, 25(11):1933-1939.
• [12]Raine R, Sanderson C, Hutchings A, Carter S, Larkin K, Black N: An experimental study of determinants of group judgments in clinical guideline development. Lancet 2004, 364(9432):429-437.
• [13]Hutchings A, Raine R: A systematic review of factors affecting the judgments produced by formal consensus development methods in health care. J Health Serv Res Policy 2006, 11(3):172-179.
• [14]Pagliari C, Grimshaw J: Impact of group structure and process on multidisciplinary evidence-based guideline development: an observational study. J Eval Clin Pract 2002, 8(2):145-153.
• [15]Hemingway H, Chen R, Junghans C, Timmis A, Eldridge S, Black N, Shekelle P, Feder G: Appropriateness criteria for coronary angiography in angina: reliability and validity. Ann Intern Med 2008, 149(4):221-231.
• [16]Legare F, Boivin A, van der Weijden T, Pakenham C, Burgers J, Legare J, St-Jacques S, Gagnon S: Patient and public involvement in clinical practice guidelines: a knowledge synthesis of existing programs. Med Decis Making 2011, 31(6):E45-E74.
• [17]Tuckman B: Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol Bull 1965, 63:384-399.