Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods
  1. Jane Noyes1,
  2. Andrew Booth2,
  3. Graham Moore3,
  4. Kate Flemming4,
  5. Özge Tunçalp5,
  6. Elham Shakibazadeh6
  1. 1 School of Social Sciences, Bangor University, Wales, UK
  2. 2 School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
  3. 3 School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Wales, UK
  4. 4 Department of Health Sciences, The University of York, York, UK
  5. 5 Department of Reproductive Health and Research including UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
  6. 6 Department of Health Education and Promotion, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  1. Correspondence to Professor Jane Noyes; jane.noyes{at}bangor.ac.uk

Abstract

Guideline developers are increasingly dealing with more difficult decisions concerning whether to recommend complex interventions in complex and highly variable health systems. There is greater recognition that both quantitative and qualitative evidence can be combined in a mixed-method synthesis and that this can be helpful in understanding how complexity impacts on interventions in specific contexts. This paper aims to clarify the different purposes, review designs, questions, synthesis methods and opportunities to combine quantitative and qualitative evidence to explore the complexity of complex interventions and health systems. Three case studies of guidelines developed by WHO, which incorporated quantitative and qualitative evidence, are used to illustrate possible uses of mixed-method reviews and evidence. Additional examples of methods that can be used or may have potential for use in a guideline process are outlined. Consideration is given to the opportunities for potential integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence at different stages of the review and guideline process. Encouragement is given to guideline commissioners and developers and review authors to consider including quantitative and qualitative evidence. Recommendations are made concerning the future development of methods to better address questions in systematic reviews and guidelines that adopt a complexity perspective.

  • health systems
  • systematic review
  • qualitative study
  • randomised control trial

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non commercial IGO License (CC BY-NC 3.0 IGO), which permits use, distribution,and reproduction for non-commercial purposes in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any reproduction of this article there should not be any suggestion that WHO or this article endorse any specific organization or products. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Soumyadeep Bhaumik

  • Contributors JN, AB, GM, KF, ÖT and ES drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to paper development and writing and agreed the final manuscript. Anayda Portela and Susan Norris from WHO managed the series. Helen Smith was series Editor. We thank all those who provided feedback on various iterations.

  • Funding Funding provided by the World Health Organization Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health through grants received from the United States Agency for International Development and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation.

  • Disclaimer ÖT is a staff member of WHO. The author alone is responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the decisions or policies of WHO.

  • Competing interests No financial interests declared. JN, AB and ÖT have an intellectual interest in GRADE CERQual; and JN has an intellectual interest in the iCAT_SR tool.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement No additional data are available.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.