Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
Applying Grade-Cerqual to Qualitative Evidence Synthesis Findings-Paper 7: Understanding the Potential Impacts of Dissemination Bias Publisher Pubmed



Booth A1 ; Lewin S2, 3 ; Glenton C2 ; Munthekaas H4 ; Toews I5 ; Noyes J6 ; Rashidian A7, 8 ; Berg RC4, 9 ; Nyakango B10 ; Meerpohl JJ5, 11 ; Bohren MA12 ; Carlsen B13 ; Colvin CJ14, 17 ; Tuncalp O15 Show All Authors
Authors
  1. Booth A1
  2. Lewin S2, 3
  3. Glenton C2
  4. Munthekaas H4
  5. Toews I5
  6. Noyes J6
  7. Rashidian A7, 8
  8. Berg RC4, 9
  9. Nyakango B10
  10. Meerpohl JJ5, 11
  11. Bohren MA12
  12. Carlsen B13
  13. Colvin CJ14, 17
  14. Tuncalp O15
  15. Garside R16
  16. Wainwright M14, 17
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. University of Sheffield, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), Sheffield, United Kingdom
  2. 2. Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
  3. 3. Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa
  4. 4. Unit for Social Welfare Research, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
  5. 5. University of Freiburg, Cochrane Germany, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, Freiburg, Germany
  6. 6. Bangor University, School of Social Sciences, Bangor, United Kingdom
  7. 7. Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran, Iran
  8. 8. Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office, World Health Organization, Department of Information, Evidence and Research Department, Cairo, Egypt
  9. 9. University of Tromso, Department of Community Medicine, Tromso, Norway
  10. 10. Newcastle University, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
  11. 11. Centre de Recherche Epidemiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cite, U1153, Inserm/Universite Paris Descartes, Cochrane France, Hopital Hotel-Dieu, 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame, Paris, Cedex 04, 75181, France
  12. 12. UNDP/ UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Spec. Programme Research, Dev., Research Training in Human Reprod., WHO, Geneva, Switzerland
  13. 13. Uni Research Rokkan Centre, Bergen, Norway
  14. 14. Division of Social and Behavioural Sciences, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
  15. 15. European Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom
  16. 16. UNDP/UNFPA/ UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland
  17. 17. Division of Social and Behavioural Sciences, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

Source: Implementation Science Published:2018


Abstract

Background: The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on a probable fifth component, dissemination bias. Given its exploratory nature, we are not yet able to provide guidance on applying this potential component of the CERQual approach. Instead, we focus on how dissemination bias might be conceptualised in the context of qualitative research and the potential impact dissemination bias might have on an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding. We also set out a proposed research agenda in this area. Methods: We developed this paper by gathering feedback from relevant research communities, searching MEDLINE and Web of Science to identify and characterise the existing literature discussing or assessing dissemination bias in qualitative research and its wider implications, developing consensus through project group meetings, and conducting an online survey of the extent, awareness and perceptions of dissemination bias in qualitative research. Results: We have defined dissemination bias in qualitative research as a systematic distortion of the phenomenon of interest due to selective dissemination of studies or individual study findings. Dissemination bias is important for qualitative evidence syntheses as the selective dissemination of qualitative studies and/or study findings may distort our understanding of the phenomena that these syntheses aim to explore and thereby undermine our confidence in these findings. Dissemination bias has been extensively examined in the context of randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews of such studies. The effects of potential dissemination bias are formally considered, as publication bias, within the GRADE approach. However, the issue has received almost no attention in the context of qualitative research. Because of very limited understanding of dissemination bias and its potential impact on review findings in the context of qualitative evidence syntheses, this component is currently not included in the GRADE-CERQual approach. Conclusions: Further research is needed to establish the extent and impacts of dissemination bias in qualitative research and the extent to which dissemination bias needs to be taken into account when we assess how much confidence we have in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses. © 2018 The Author(s).
Other Related Docs