Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2009

Open Access 01-12-2009 | Methodology

A method for studying decision-making by guideline development groups

Authors: Benjamin Gardner, Rosemary Davidson, John McAteer, Susan Michie, the "Evidence into Recommendations" study group

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Multidisciplinary guideline development groups (GDGs) have considerable influence on UK healthcare policy and practice, but previous research suggests that research evidence is a variable influence on GDG recommendations. The Evidence into Recommendations (EiR) study has been set up to document social-psychological influences on GDG decision-making. In this paper we aim to evaluate the relevance of existing qualitative methodologies to the EiR study, and to develop a method best-suited to capturing influences on GDG decision-making.

Methods

A research team comprised of three postdoctoral research fellows and a multidisciplinary steering group assessed the utility of extant qualitative methodologies for coding verbatim GDG meeting transcripts and semi-structured interviews with GDG members. A unique configuration of techniques was developed to permit data reduction and analysis.

Results

Our method incorporates techniques from thematic analysis, grounded theory analysis, content analysis, and framework analysis. Thematic analysis of individual interviews conducted with group members at the start and end of the GDG process defines discrete problem areas to guide data extraction from GDG meeting transcripts. Data excerpts are coded both inductively and deductively, using concepts taken from theories of decision-making, social influence and group processes. These codes inform a framework analysis to describe and explain incidents within GDG meetings. We illustrate the application of the method by discussing some preliminary findings of a study of a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) acute physical health GDG.

Conclusion

This method is currently being applied to study the meetings of three of NICE GDGs. These cover topics in acute physical health, mental health and public health, and comprise a total of 45 full-day meetings. The method offers potential for application to other health care and decision-making groups.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Burgers JS, Bailey JV, Klazinga NS, Bij van der AK, Grol R, Feder G: Inside Guidelines: Comparative analysis of recommendations and evidence in diabetes guidelines from 13 countries. Diabetes Care. 2002, 25: 1933-1939. 10.2337/diacare.25.11.1933.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Pagliari C, Grimshaw J, Eccles M: The potential influence of small group processes on guideline development. J Eval Clin Pract. 2001, 7: 165-173. 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00272.x.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Sheldon TA, Cullum N, Dawson D, Lankshear A, Lowson K, Watt I, West P, Wright D, Wright J: What's the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients' notes, and interviews. BMJ. 2004, 329: 999-10.1136/bmj.329.7473.999.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Moreira T, May C, Mason J, Eccles M: A new method of analysis enables a better understanding of clinical practice guideline development processes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006, 59: 1199-1206. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.08.021.CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Berg M, Meulen RT, Burg van den M: Guidelines for appropriate care: The importance of empirical normative analysis. Health Care Anal. 2001, 9: 77-99. 10.1023/A:1011307112091.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Pagliari C, Grimshaw J: Impact of group structure and process on multidisciplinary evidence-based guideline development: an observational study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2002, 8: 145-153. 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2002.00333.x.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Moreira T: Diversity in clinical guidelines: the role of repertoires of evaluation. Soc Sci Med. 2005, 60: 1975-1985. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.062.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Janis IL: Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. 1982, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2
11.
Michie S, Berentson-Shaw J, Pilling S, Feder G, Dieppe P, Raine R, Cluzeau F, Alderson P, Ellis S: Turning evidence into recommendations: Protocol for a study of guideline development groups. Implement Sci. 2007, 2: 29-10.1186/1748-5908-2-29.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Latané B: The psychology of social impact. Am Psychol. 1981, 36: 343-356. 10.1037/0003-066X.36.4.343.CrossRef
13.
Klocke U: How to improve decision making in small groups: Effects of dissent and training interventions. Small Gr Res. 2007, 38: 437-468. 10.1177/1046496407301974.CrossRef
14.
Raine R, Sanderson C, Hutchings A, Carter S, Larkin K, Black N: An experimental study of determinants of group judgments in clinical guideline development. Lancet. 2004, 364: 429-437. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16766-4.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Bales RF: Interaction Process Analysis: A method for the study of small groups. 1950, Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley
16.
Willig C: Discourse analysis. Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods. Edited by: Smith JA. 2008, London: Sage, 160-185. 2
17.
Strauss AL, Corbin JM: Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 1998, London: Sage, 2
18.
Willig C: Introducing Qualitative Research Methods in Psychology. 2001, London: Open University Press
19.
20.
Drew P: Conversation analysis. Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods. Edited by: Smith JA. 2003, London: Sage, 132-158.
21.
Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006, 3: 77-101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.CrossRef
22.
Smith JA, Osborn M: Interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods. Edited by: Smith JA. 2003, London: Sage, 51-81.
23.
Ritchie J, Spencer L, O'Connor W: Carrying out qualitative analysis. Qualitative Research Practice. Edited by: Ritchie J, Lewis J. 2003, London: Sage, 219-262.
24.
Tajfel H: Human groups and social categories. 1981, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
25.
Jefferson G: Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation. Edited by: Lerner GH. 2004, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 13-31.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A method for studying decision-making by guideline development groups
Authors
Benjamin Gardner
Rosemary Davidson
John McAteer
Susan Michie
the "Evidence into Recommendations" study group
Publication date
01-12-2009
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2009
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-48

Other articles of this Issue 1/2009

Implementation Science 1/2009 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Study protocol for the translating research in elder care (TREC): building context – an organizational monitoring program in long-term care project (project one)

Study protocol

An innovative telemedicine knowledge translation program to improve quality of care in intensive care units: protocol for a cluster randomized pragmatic trial

Study protocol

Development of a synoptic MRI report for primary rectal cancer

Editorial

Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the need for a scientific method

Research article

An exploration of how clinician attitudes and beliefs influence the implementation of lifestyle risk factor management in primary healthcare: a grounded theory study

Study protocol

The National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland (LNR): a programme protocol