Research Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE), University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, UK.
Implement Sci. 2013 Sep 4;8:101. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-101.
There has been significant investment in developing guidelines to improve clinical and public health practice. Though much is known about the processes of evidence synthesis and evidence-based guidelines implementation, we know little about how evidence presented to advisory groups is interpreted and used to form practice recommendations or what happens where evidence is lacking. This study investigates how members of advisory groups of NICE (National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence) conceptualize evidence and experience the process.
Members of three advisory groups for acute physical, mental and public health were interviewed at the beginning and end of the life of the group. Seventeen were interviewed at both time points; five were interviewed just once at time one; and 17 were interviewed only once after guidance completion. Using thematic and content analysis, interview transcripts were analysed to identify the main themes.
Three themes were identified:1. What is the task? Different members conceptualized the task differently; some emphasized the importance of evidence at the top of the quality hierarchy while others emphasized the importance of personal experience.2. Who gets heard? Managing the diversity of opinion and vested interests was a challenge for the groups; service users were valued and as was the importance of fostering good working relationships between group members.3. What is the process? Group members valued debate and recognized the need to marshal discussion; most members were satisfied with the process and output.
Evidence doesn't form recommendations on its own, but requires human judgement. Diversity of opinion within advisory groups was seen as key to making well-informed judgments relevant to forming recommendations. However, that diversity can bring tensions in the evaluation of evidence and its translation into practice recommendations.
为了改进临床和公共卫生实践,人们投入了大量资金来制定指南。尽管我们对证据综合和循证指南实施的过程有了很多了解,但我们对顾问团如何解释呈交给他们的证据以及如何利用这些证据来形成实践建议,或者在缺乏证据的情况下会发生什么,知之甚少。本研究调查了 NICE(英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所)顾问团成员如何理解证据并体验这一过程。
在顾问团生命的开始和结束时,对三个急性物理、精神和公共卫生顾问团的成员进行了采访。其中 17 人在两个时间点都接受了采访;5 人只在时间 1 接受了一次采访;17 人只在指南完成后接受了一次采访。通过主题和内容分析,对访谈记录进行了分析,以确定主要主题。
确定了三个主题:1. 任务是什么?不同的成员对任务有不同的理解;一些人强调证据在质量层次结构中的重要性,而另一些人则强调个人经验的重要性。2. 谁的声音被听到?管理意见和既得利益的多样性是小组面临的挑战;服务用户受到重视,培养小组成员之间良好工作关系的重要性也得到了认可。3. 过程是什么?小组成员重视辩论,并认识到需要整理讨论;大多数成员对过程和结果感到满意。
证据本身并不能形成建议,而是需要人的判断。顾问团内部的意见多样性被认为是做出明智判断并形成建议的关键。然而,这种多样性可能会在评估证据及其转化为实践建议时带来紧张局势。