Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-01-2018 | Method

Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 5: how to assess adequacy of data

Authors: Claire Glenton, Benedicte Carlsen, Simon Lewin, Heather Munthe-Kaas, Christopher J. Colvin, Özge Tunçalp, Meghan A. Bohren, Jane Noyes, Andrew Booth, Ruth Garside, Arash Rashidian, Signe Flottorp, Megan Wainwright

Published in: Implementation Science | Special Issue 1/2018

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 CERQual’s adequacy of data component.

Methods

We developed the adequacy of data component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual adequacy of data component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application.

Results

When applying CERQual, we define adequacy of data as an overall determination of the degree of richness and the quantity of data supporting a review finding. In this paper, we describe the adequacy component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess data adequacy in the context of a review finding as part of the CERQual approach. This guidance outlines the information required to assess data adequacy, the steps that need to be taken to assess data adequacy, and examples of adequacy assessments.

Conclusions

This paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of adequacy in the context of the CERQual approach. We approach assessments of data adequacy in terms of the richness and quantity of the data supporting each review finding, but do not offer fixed rules regarding what constitutes sufficiently rich data or an adequate quantity of data. Instead, we recommend that this assessment is made in relation to the nature of the finding. We expect the CERQual approach, and its individual components, to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase.

Available only for authorised users

Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Carlsen B, Colvin CJ, Gulmezoglu M, Noyes J, Booth A, Garside R, Rashidian A. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Med. 2015;12(10):e1001895.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Rind D, Devereaux PJ, Montori VM, Freyschuss B, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1283–93.CrossRefPubMed

Colvin CJ, Garside R, Wainwright M, Lewin S, Bohren M, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas HM, Carlsen B, Tuncalp Ö, Noyes J, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 4: how to assess coherence. Implement Sci. 2018;13(Suppl 1): https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0691-8.

Munthe-Kaas HM, Bohren M, Carlsen B, Glenton C, Lewin S, Colvin CJ, Tuncalp Ö, Noyes J, Booth A, Garside R, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 3: how to assess methodological limitations. Implement Sci. 2018;13(Suppl 1): https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0690-9.

Noyes J, Booth A, Lewin S, Carlsen B, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas HM, Colvin CJ, Garside R, Bohren M, Rashidian A, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data. Implement Sci. 2018;13(Suppl 1): https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0693-6.

Lewin S, Bohren M, Rashidian A, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas HM, Carlsen B, Colvin CJ, Tuncalp Ö, Noyes J, Booth A, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 2: how to make an overall CERQual assessment of confidence and create a summary of qualitative findings table. Implement Sci. 2018;13(Suppl 1): https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0689-2.

Ames HMR, Glenton C, Lewin S. Parents’ and informal caregivers’ views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination: a synthesis of qualitative evidence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2:CD011787.PubMed

Aslam RW, Hendry M, Carter B, Noyes J, Rycroft Malone J, Booth A, Pasterfield D, Charles JM, Craine N, Tudor Edwards R, et al. Interventions for preventing unintended repeat pregnancies among adolescents (protocol). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(1):CD011477.

Bohren MA, Hunter EC, Munthe-Kaas HM, Souza JP, Vogel JP, Gulmezoglu AM. Facilitators and barriers to facility-based delivery in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Reprod Health. 2014;11(1):71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Bohren MA, Vogel JP, Hunter EC, Lutsiv O, Makh SK, Souza JP, Aguiar C, Saraiva Coneglian F, Diniz AL, Tuncalp O, et al. The mistreatment of women during childbirth in health facilities globally: a mixed-methods systematic review. PLoS Med. 2015;12(6):e1001847. discussion e1001847CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Colvin CJ, de Heer J, Winterton L, Mellenkamp M, Glenton C, Noyes J, Lewin S, Rashidian A. A systematic review of qualitative evidence on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of task-shifting in midwifery services. Midwifery. 2013;29(10):1211–21.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Glenton C, Colvin CJ, Carlsen B, Swartz A, Lewin S, Noyes J, Rashidian A. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of lay health worker programmes to improve access to maternal and child health: qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;10:CD010414.

13.

Munabi-Babigumira S, Glenton C, Lewin S, Fretheim A, Nabudere H. Factors that influence the provision of intrapartum and postnatal care by skilled birth attendants in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(11):Art. No.: CD011558.

14.

Munthe-Kaas HM, Hammerstrøm KT, et al. Effekt av og erfaringer med kontinuitetsfremmende tiltak i barnevernsinstitusjoner. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2013.

15.

O’Brien TD, Noyes J, Spencer LH, Kubis HP, Hastings RP, Edwards RT, Bray N, Whitaker R. ‘Keep fit’ exercise interventions to improve health, fitness and well-being of children and young people who use wheelchairs: mixed-method systematic review protocol. J Adv Nurs. 2014;70(12):2942–51.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Rashidian A, Shakibazadeh E, Karimi-Shahanjarini A, Glenton C, Noyes J, Lewin S, Colvin C, Laurant M. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of doctor-nurse substitution strategies in primary care: qualitative evidence synthesis (protocol). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2:CD010412.

17.

Whitaker R, Hendry M, Booth A, Carter B, Charles J, Craine N, Edwards RT, Lyons M, Noyes J, Pasterfield D, et al. Intervention now to eliminate repeat unintended pregnancy in teenagers (INTERUPT): a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, qualitative and realist synthesis of implementation factors and user engagement. BMJ Open. 2014;4(4):e004733.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Downe S, Finlayson K, Tuncalp Ӧ, Metin Gulmezoglu A. What matters to women: a systematic scoping review to identify the processes and outcomes of antenatal care provision that are important to healthy pregnant women. BJOG. 2016;123(4):529–39.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Odendaal WA, Goudge J, Griffiths F, Tomlinson M, Leon N, Daniels K. Healthcare workers’ perceptions and experience on using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services: qualitative evidence synthesis (protocol). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(11):CD011942.

20.

Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas HM, Rashidian A, Wainwright M, Bohren MA, Tuncalp Ö, Colvin CJ, Garside R, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. Implement Sci. 2018;13(Suppl 1): https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3.

21.

Baker S, Edwards R. How many qualitative interviews is enough? Expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research. Southampton: National Centre for Research Methods; 2012. p. 1–42.

22.

Popay J, Rogers A, Williams G. Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qual Health Res. 1998;8(3):341–51.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Sandelowski M. Sample size in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 1995;18(2):179–83.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1753–60.

25.

Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for Health Research. London: Sage; 2005.

26.

Carlsen B, Glenton C. What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Charmaz K. In: Baker S, Edwards R, editors. How many qualitative interviews is enough? Expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research. Southampton: National Centre for Research Methods; 2012. p. 21–2.

28.

Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82.CrossRef

29.

Francis J, Johnston M, Robertson C, Glidewell L, Entwistle V, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM. What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health. 2010;25(10):1229–45.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 5: how to assess adequacy of data
Authors: Claire Glenton
Benedicte Carlsen
Simon Lewin
Heather Munthe-Kaas
Christopher J. Colvin
Özge Tunçalp
Meghan A. Bohren
Jane Noyes
Andrew Booth
Ruth Garside
Arash Rashidian
Signe Flottorp
Megan Wainwright
Publication date: 01-01-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Implementation Science / Issue Special Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0692-7

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 5: how to assess adequacy of data

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Special Issue 1/2018

Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 3: how to assess methodological limitations

Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias

Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series

Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 4: how to assess coherence

Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data

Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 2: how to make an overall CERQual assessment of confidence and create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table