A Pragmatic Approach to Health System Evidence (HSE) Synthesis for Making Pragmatic Policy Decisions

Tilahun Nigatu Haregu, Dimitri Batras, Vajira Nanayakkara

Abstract


Health System Evidence (HSE) could broadly be categorized in to Research-based, Practice-based and Contextual evidence. However, achieving a reasonable syntheis of these three forms of evidence has been a challenge as most of the existing evidence synthesis techniques are limited scope and methodology. Using the pragmatic approach, we developed a step-wise approach of HSE synthesis defined by the decision point for which the evidence is needed (outcome), the desired output of the synthesis (output), the available evidence that can undergo synthesis (inputs), the synthesis methods (processes), the role of the synthesizer, and the interests and values of the users. Therefore, this paper is intended to explore important perspectives and facets that need to be considered when conducting HSE synthesis using this pragmatic approach. 

References


Bahari, & Fatimah, S. (2010). Qualitative versus quantitative research strategies: contrasting epistemological and ontological assumptions. Jurnal Teknologi (Sains Sosial), 52, 17-28.

Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 9, 59. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-59.

Blake C, & W., P. (2006). Collaborative information synthesis I: A model of information behaviours of scientists in medicine and public health. Journal of the American Society for Information Science And Technology, 57(13), 1740-1749.

Bradt, D. A. (2009). Evidence-based decision-making (part 1): Origins and evolution in the health sciences. Prehosp Disaster Med, 24(4), 298-305.

Bryman, A (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97-113.

Canadian Health System Research Foundation. (2005). Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance. Ottawa, Ontario.

Cartwright, N. (2011). A philosopher's view of the long road from RCTs to effectiveness. Lancet, 377(9775), 1400-1401.

Cartwright, N. (2011). Predicting “it will work for us”: (Way) beyond statistics. In R. F. Illari P McKay, Williamson J (Ed.), Causality in the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chalmers, I., Hedges, L. V., & Cooper, H. (2002). A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof, 25(1), 12-37.

Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (2009). Research synthesis as a scientific process. Retrieved Jun 14, 2014, from http://www.russellsage.org/sites/all/files/Cooper_Hedges_2d_Chap1_0.pdf

Dias, S., Welton, N. J., Sutton, A. J., & Ades, A. E. (2013). Evidence synthesis for decision making 1: Introduction. Med Decis Making, 33(5), 597-606. doi: 10.1177/0272989x13487604

Dixon-Woods, M., Bonas, S., Booth, A., Jones, D., Miller, T., & Sutton A. J., E. A. (2006). How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qualitative Research, 6, 1(27-44).

Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., . . . Sutton, A. J. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol, 6, 35. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-35

Gary Banks. (2009). Evidence-based policy making: What is it? How do we get it? Canberra: ANZSOG.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.

Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Akl, E. A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., . . . Schunemann, H. J. (2011). GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol, 64(4), 383-394. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026

Health Systems 20/20. (2012). The health system assessment approach: A how-to manual. version 2.0. http://www.healthsystemassessment.com/.

Jackson, N., & Waters, E. (2005). Criteria for the systematic review of health promotion and public health interventions. Health Promot Int, 20(4), 367-374. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dai022

Johnstone, P. L. (2004). Mixed methods, mixed methodology health services research in practice. Qual Health Res, 14(2), 259-271. doi: 10.1177/1049732303260610

Jones, H. (2011). A guide to monitoring and evaluating policy influence. Overseas Development Institute.

Lewin, S., Bosch-Capblanch, X., Oliver, S., Akl, E. A., Vist, G. E., Lavis, J. N., . . . Haines, A. (2012). Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: assessing how much confidence to place in the research evidence. PLoS Med, 9(3), e1001187. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001187

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., . . . Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. Bmj, 339, b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700

Murray, C. J., & Frenk, J. (2000). A framework for assessing the performance of health systems. Bull World Health Organ, 78(6), 717-731.

NHMRC. How to use the evidence: Assessment and application of scientific evidence. Handbook series on preparing clinical practice guidelines. Commonwealth of Australia; Canberra.

Oxman, A. D., Lavis, J. N., Lewin, S., & Fretheim, A. (2009). SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 1: What is evidence-informed policymaking? Health Res Policy Syst, 7 Suppl 1, S1. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-7-s1-s1

Raholm, M. B. (2010). Abductive reasoning and the formation of scientific knowledge within nursing research. Nurs Philos, 11(4), 260-270. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-769X.2010.00457.x

Ritchey, T. (1991). Analysis and synthesis: On scientific method – based on a study by bernhard riemann. Systems Research, 8(4), 21-41. doi: 10.1002/sres.3850080402

Rodgers, M., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Roberts, H., Britten, N., & Popay, J. (2009). Testing Methodological Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: Effectiveness of Interventions to Promote Smoke Alarm Ownership and Function. Evaluation, 15(1), 49-73. doi: 10.1177/1356389008097871

Rohrig, B., du Prel, J. B., Wachtlin, D., & Blettner, M. (2009). Types of study in medical research: part 3 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int, 106(15), 262-268. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2009.0262

Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Barroso, J. (2006). Defining and Designing Mixed Research Synthesis Studies. Res Sch, 13(1), 29.

Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., Leeman, J., & Crandell, J. L. (2012). Mapping the Mixed Methods-Mixed Research Synthesis Terrain. J Mix Methods Res, 6(4), 317-331. doi: 10.1177/1558689811427913

Scott-Findlay, S., & Pollock, C. (2004). Evidence, research, knowledge: a call for conceptual clarity. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs, 1(2), 92-97; discussion 98-101. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6787.2004.04021.x

Smith, V., Devane, D., Begley, C. M., & Clarke, M. (2011). Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol, 11(1), 15. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-15

Terrel, S. (2012). Mixed-method research methodologies. The qualitative report, 17(1), 254-280.

Uman, L. S. (2011). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 20(1), 57-59.

UNICEF. (2004). Bridging the gap: The role of monitoring and evaluation in evidence-based policy making. Romania.

University of South Australia. Critical Appraisal Tools. Retrieved Jan 16, 2015, from http://www.unisa.edu.au/research/sansom-institute-for-health-research/research-at-the-sansom/research-concentrations/allied-health-evidence/resources/cat/

Weed, M. (2008). potential method for the interpretive synthesis of Qualitative research: issues in the development of meta-interpretation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(1), 13-18.

World Health Organization. (2007). Everybody business : strengthening health systems to improve health outcomes : WHO’s framework for action. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Document Production Services.

World Health Organization. (2010). Monitoring the building blocks of health systems: a handbook of indicators and their measurement strategies. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Document Production Services.


Full Text: PDF

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

BOOKS

DMDMH Strategies for Qualitative Research

Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[JGHCS] ISSN 2159-6743 (Online)

Global Health Care Systems, Minnetonka, MN, USA 55305