Mays Nicholas, Pope Catherine, Popay Jennie
Health Services Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Jul;10 Suppl 1:6-20. doi: 10.1258/1355819054308576.
Policy-makers and managers have always used a wide range of sources of evidence in making decisions about policy and the organization of services. However, they are under increasing pressure to adopt a more systematic approach to the utilization of the complex evidence base. Decision-makers must address complicated questions about the nature and significance of the problem to be addressed; the nature of proposed interventions; their differential impact; cost-effectiveness; acceptability and so on. This means that Cochrane-style reviews alone are not sufficient. Rather, they require access to syntheses of high-quality evidence that include research and non-research sources, and both qualitative and quantitative research findings. There is no single, agreed framework for synthesizing such diverse forms of evidence and many of the approaches potentially applicable to such an endeavour were devised for either qualitative or quantitative synthesis and/or for analysing primary data. This paper describes the key stages in reviewing and synthesizing qualitative and quantitative evidence for decision-making and looks at various strategies that could offer a way forward. We identify four basic approaches: narrative (including traditional 'literature reviews' and more methodologically explicit approaches such as 'thematic analysis', 'narrative synthesis', 'realist synthesis' and 'meta-narrative mapping'), qualitative (which convert all available evidence into qualitative form using techniques such as 'meta-ethnography' and 'qualitative cross-case analysis'), quantitative (which convert all evidence into quantitative form using techniques such as 'quantitative case survey' or 'content analysis') and Bayesian meta-analysis and decision analysis (which can convert qualitative evidence such as preferences about different outcomes into quantitative form or 'weights' to use in quantitative synthesis). The choice of approach will be contingent on the aim of the review and nature of the available evidence, and often more than one approach will be required.
政策制定者和管理者在制定政策和服务组织决策时,一直广泛使用各种证据来源。然而,他们面临着越来越大的压力,需要采用更系统的方法来利用复杂的证据基础。决策者必须解决有关待解决问题的性质和重要性、拟议干预措施的性质、其不同影响、成本效益、可接受性等复杂问题。这意味着仅靠Cochrane式综述是不够的。相反,他们需要获取高质量证据的综合,包括研究和非研究来源,以及定性和定量研究结果。目前尚无单一的、公认的框架来综合如此多样的证据形式,许多可能适用于这一工作的方法是为定性或定量综合和/或分析原始数据而设计的。本文描述了为决策而审查和综合定性和定量证据的关键阶段,并探讨了各种可能提供前进方向的策略。我们确定了四种基本方法:叙述性方法(包括传统的“文献综述”以及方法上更明确的方法,如“主题分析”、“叙述性综合”、“现实主义综合”和“元叙述映射”)、定性方法(使用“元民族志”和“定性跨案例分析”等技术将所有可用证据转换为定性形式)、定量方法(使用“定量案例调查”或“内容分析”等技术将所有证据转换为定量形式)以及贝叶斯元分析和决策分析(可以将关于不同结果的偏好等定性证据转换为定量形式或“权重”,以便在定量综合中使用)。方法的选择将取决于综述的目的和可用证据的性质,通常需要不止一种方法。