The effectiveness and acceptability of evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development groups: a mixed-methods systematic review
Abstract Introduction Clinical guideline development often involves a rigorous synthesis of evidence involving multidisciplinary stakeholders with different priorities and knowledge of evidence synthesis; this makes communicating findings complex. Summary formats are typically used to communicate th...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2022-10-01
|
| Series: | Implementation Science |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01243-2 |
| _version_ | 1811247806708449280 |
|---|---|
| author | Melissa K. Sharp Dayang Anis Binti Awang Baki Joan Quigley Barrie Tyner Declan Devane Kamal R. Mahtani Susan M. Smith Michelle O’Neill Máirín Ryan Barbara Clyne |
| author_facet | Melissa K. Sharp Dayang Anis Binti Awang Baki Joan Quigley Barrie Tyner Declan Devane Kamal R. Mahtani Susan M. Smith Michelle O’Neill Máirín Ryan Barbara Clyne |
| author_sort | Melissa K. Sharp |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Introduction Clinical guideline development often involves a rigorous synthesis of evidence involving multidisciplinary stakeholders with different priorities and knowledge of evidence synthesis; this makes communicating findings complex. Summary formats are typically used to communicate the results of evidence syntheses; however, there is little consensus on which formats are most effective and acceptable for different stakeholders. Methods This mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability (e.g. preferences and attitudes and preferences towards) of evidence synthesis summary formats for GDG members. We followed the PRISMA 2020 guideline and Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis for MMSRs. We searched six databases (inception to April 20, 2021) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RCTs with a qualitative component, and qualitative studies. Screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed in duplicate. Qualitative findings were synthesised using meta-aggregation, and quantitative findings are described narratively. Results We identified 17,240 citations and screened 54 full-text articles, resulting in 22 eligible articles (20 unique studies): 4 articles reported the results of 5 RCTs, one of which also had a qualitative component. The other 18 articles discussed the results of 16 qualitative studies. Therefore, we had 5 trials and 17 qualitative studies to extract data from. Studies were geographically heterogeneous and included a variety of stakeholders and summary formats. All 5 RCTs assessed knowledge or understanding with 3 reporting improvement with newer formats. The qualitative analysis identified 6 categories of recommendations: ‘presenting information’, ‘tailoring information’ for end users, ‘trust in producers and summary’, ‘knowledge required’ to understand findings, ‘quality of evidence’, and properly ‘contextualising information’. Across these categories, the synthesis resulted in 126 recommendations for practice. Nine recommendations were supported by both quantitative and qualitative evidence and 116 by only qualitative. A majority focused on how to present information (n = 64) and tailor content for different end users (n = 24). Conclusions This MMSR provides guidance on how to improve evidence summary structure and layout. This can be used by synthesis producers to better communicate to GDGs. Study findings will inform the co-creation of evidence summary format prototypes based on GDG member’s needs. Trial registration The protocol for this project was previously published, and the project was preregistered on Open Science Framework (Clyne and Sharp, Evidence synthesis and translation of findings for national clinical guideline development: addressing the needs and preferences of guideline development groups, 2021; Sharp and Clyne, Evidence synthesis summary formats for decision-makers and Clinical Guideline Development Groups: A mixed-methods systematic review protocol, 2021). |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T15:15:58Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-14f7117612f641bf9d67d2a4595b81c4 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1748-5908 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T15:15:58Z |
| publishDate | 2022-10-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Implementation Science |
| spelling | doaj.art-14f7117612f641bf9d67d2a4595b81c42022-12-22T03:27:36ZengBMCImplementation Science1748-59082022-10-0117112010.1186/s13012-022-01243-2The effectiveness and acceptability of evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development groups: a mixed-methods systematic reviewMelissa K. Sharp0Dayang Anis Binti Awang Baki1Joan Quigley2Barrie Tyner3Declan Devane4Kamal R. Mahtani5Susan M. Smith6Michelle O’Neill7Máirín Ryan8Barbara Clyne9Department of General Practice, RCSI University of Medicine and Health SciencesSchool of Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in IrelandHealth Information and Quality AuthorityHealth Information and Quality AuthoritySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, NUI GalwayNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of OxfordDepartment of General Practice, RCSI University of Medicine and Health SciencesHealth Information and Quality AuthorityHealth Information and Quality AuthorityDepartment of General Practice, RCSI University of Medicine and Health SciencesAbstract Introduction Clinical guideline development often involves a rigorous synthesis of evidence involving multidisciplinary stakeholders with different priorities and knowledge of evidence synthesis; this makes communicating findings complex. Summary formats are typically used to communicate the results of evidence syntheses; however, there is little consensus on which formats are most effective and acceptable for different stakeholders. Methods This mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability (e.g. preferences and attitudes and preferences towards) of evidence synthesis summary formats for GDG members. We followed the PRISMA 2020 guideline and Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis for MMSRs. We searched six databases (inception to April 20, 2021) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RCTs with a qualitative component, and qualitative studies. Screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed in duplicate. Qualitative findings were synthesised using meta-aggregation, and quantitative findings are described narratively. Results We identified 17,240 citations and screened 54 full-text articles, resulting in 22 eligible articles (20 unique studies): 4 articles reported the results of 5 RCTs, one of which also had a qualitative component. The other 18 articles discussed the results of 16 qualitative studies. Therefore, we had 5 trials and 17 qualitative studies to extract data from. Studies were geographically heterogeneous and included a variety of stakeholders and summary formats. All 5 RCTs assessed knowledge or understanding with 3 reporting improvement with newer formats. The qualitative analysis identified 6 categories of recommendations: ‘presenting information’, ‘tailoring information’ for end users, ‘trust in producers and summary’, ‘knowledge required’ to understand findings, ‘quality of evidence’, and properly ‘contextualising information’. Across these categories, the synthesis resulted in 126 recommendations for practice. Nine recommendations were supported by both quantitative and qualitative evidence and 116 by only qualitative. A majority focused on how to present information (n = 64) and tailor content for different end users (n = 24). Conclusions This MMSR provides guidance on how to improve evidence summary structure and layout. This can be used by synthesis producers to better communicate to GDGs. Study findings will inform the co-creation of evidence summary format prototypes based on GDG member’s needs. Trial registration The protocol for this project was previously published, and the project was preregistered on Open Science Framework (Clyne and Sharp, Evidence synthesis and translation of findings for national clinical guideline development: addressing the needs and preferences of guideline development groups, 2021; Sharp and Clyne, Evidence synthesis summary formats for decision-makers and Clinical Guideline Development Groups: A mixed-methods systematic review protocol, 2021).https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01243-2Presentation of findingsEvidence summariesSummary of findings tableCommunicationMixed-methods systematic review |
| spellingShingle | Melissa K. Sharp Dayang Anis Binti Awang Baki Joan Quigley Barrie Tyner Declan Devane Kamal R. Mahtani Susan M. Smith Michelle O’Neill Máirín Ryan Barbara Clyne The effectiveness and acceptability of evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development groups: a mixed-methods systematic review Implementation Science Presentation of findings Evidence summaries Summary of findings table Communication Mixed-methods systematic review |
| title | The effectiveness and acceptability of evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development groups: a mixed-methods systematic review |
| title_full | The effectiveness and acceptability of evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development groups: a mixed-methods systematic review |
| title_fullStr | The effectiveness and acceptability of evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development groups: a mixed-methods systematic review |
| title_full_unstemmed | The effectiveness and acceptability of evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development groups: a mixed-methods systematic review |
| title_short | The effectiveness and acceptability of evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development groups: a mixed-methods systematic review |
| title_sort | effectiveness and acceptability of evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development groups a mixed methods systematic review |
| topic | Presentation of findings Evidence summaries Summary of findings table Communication Mixed-methods systematic review |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01243-2 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT melissaksharp theeffectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT dayanganisbintiawangbaki theeffectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT joanquigley theeffectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT barrietyner theeffectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT declandevane theeffectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT kamalrmahtani theeffectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT susanmsmith theeffectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT michelleoneill theeffectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT mairinryan theeffectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT barbaraclyne theeffectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT melissaksharp effectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT dayanganisbintiawangbaki effectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT joanquigley effectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT barrietyner effectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT declandevane effectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT kamalrmahtani effectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT susanmsmith effectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT michelleoneill effectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT mairinryan effectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT barbaraclyne effectivenessandacceptabilityofevidencesynthesissummaryformatsforclinicalguidelinedevelopmentgroupsamixedmethodssystematicreview |