Browsing by Author "Garside, Ruth"

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data
    (2018) Noyes, Jane; Booth, Andrew; Lewin, Simon; Carlsen, Benedicte; Glenton, Claire; Colvin, Christopher J.; Garside, Ruth; Bohren, Meghan A.; Rashidian, Arash; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás
    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 relevance component. Methods We developed the relevance component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual relevance component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application. Results When applying CERQual, we define relevance as the extent to which the body of data from the primary studies supporting a review finding is applicable to the context (perspective or population, phenomenon of interest, setting) specified in the review question. In this paper, we describe the relevance component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess relevance in the context of a review finding. This guidance outlines the information required to assess relevance, the steps that need to be taken to assess relevance and examples of relevance assessments. Conclusions This paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of relevance in the context of the CERQual approach. Assessing the relevance component requires consideration of potentially important contextual factors at an early stage in the review process. We expect the CERQual approach, and its individual components, to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase.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 relevance component. Methods We developed the relevance component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual relevance component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application. Results When applying CERQual, we define relevance as the extent to which the body of data from the primary studies supporting a review finding is applicable to the context (perspective or population, phenomenon of interest, setting) specified in the review question. In this paper, we describe the relevance component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess relevance in the context of a review finding. This guidance outlines the information required to assess relevance, the steps that need to be taken to assess relevance and examples of relevance assessments. Conclusions This paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of relevance in the context of the CERQual approach. Assessing the relevance component requires consideration of potentially important contextual factors at an early stage in the review process. We expect the CERQual approach, and its individual components, to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase.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 relevance component. Methods We developed the relevance component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual relevance component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application. Results When applying CERQual, we define relevance as the extent to which the body of data from the primary studies supporting a review finding is applicable to the context (perspective or population, phenomenon of interest, setting) specified in the review question. In this paper, we describe the relevance component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess relevance in the context of a review finding. This guidance outlines the information required to assess relevance, the steps that need to be taken to assess relevance and examples of relevance assessments. Conclusions This paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of relevance in the context of the CERQual approach. Assessing the relevance component requires consideration of potentially important contextual factors at an early stage in the review process. We expect the CERQual approach, and its individual components, to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series - paper 1 : introduction
    (2018) Noyes, Jane; Booth, Andrew; Cargo, Margaret; Flemming, Kate; Garside, Ruth; Hannes, Karin; Harden, Angela; Harris, Janet; Lewin, Simon; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Thomas, James
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis
    (2018) Harris, Janet L.; Booth, Andrew; Cargo, Margaret; Hannes, Karin; Harden, Angela; Flemming, Kate; Garside, Ruth; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Thomas, James; Noyes, Jane
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings
    (2018) Noyes, Jane; Booth, Andrew; Flemming, Kate; Garside, Ruth; Harden, Angela; Lewin, Simon; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Hannes, Karin; Cargo, Margaret; Thomas, James
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 4: methods for assessing evidence on intervention implementation
    (2018) Cargo, Margaret; Harris, Janet; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Booth, Andrew; Harden, Angela; Hannes, Karin; Thomas, James; Flemming, Kate; Garside, Ruth; Noyes, Jane
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews
    (2018) Harden, Angela; Thomas, James; Cargo, Margaret; Harris, Janet; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Flemming, Kate; Booth, Andrew; Garside, Ruth; Hannes, Karin; Noyes, Jane
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Training future generations to deliver evidence-based conservation and ecosystem management
    (WILEY, 2021) Downey, Harriet; Amano, Tatsuya; Cadotte, Marc; Cook, Carly N.; Cooke, Steven J.; Haddaway, Neal R.; Jones, Julia P. G.; Littlewood, Nick; Walsh, Jessica C.; Abrahams, Mark, I; Adum, Gilbert; Akasaka, Munemitsu; Alves, Jose A.; Antwis, Rachael E.; Arellano, Eduardo C.; Axmacher, Jan; Barclay, Holly; Batty, Lesley; Benitez-Lopez, Ana; Bennett, Joseph R.; Berg, Maureen J.; Bertolino, Sandro; Biggs, Duan; Bolam, Friederike C.; Bray, Tim; Brook, Barry W.; Bull, Joseph W.; Burivalova, Zuzana; Cabeza, Mar; Chauvenet, Alienor L. M.; Christie, Alec P.; Cole, Lorna; Cotton, Alison J.; Cotton, Sam; Cousins, Sara A. O.; Craven, Dylan; Cresswell, Will; Cusack, Jeremy J.; Dalrymple, Sarah E.; Davies, Zoe G.; Diaz, Anita; Dodd, Jennifer A.; Felton, Adam; Fleishman, Erica; Gardner, Charlie J.; Garside, Ruth; Ghoddousi, Arash; Gilroy, James J.; Gill, David A.; Gill, Jennifer A.; Glew, Louise; Grainger, Matthew J.; Grass, Amelia A.; Greshon, Stephanie; Gundry, Jamie; Hart, Tom; Hopkins, Charlotte R.; Howe, Caroline; Johnson, Arlyne; Jones, Kelly W.; Jordan, Neil R.; Kadoya, Taku; Kerhoas, Daphne; Koricheva, Julia; Lee, Tien Ming; Lengyel, Szabolcs; Livingstone, Stuart W.; Lyons, Ashley; McCabe, Grainne; Millett, Jonathan; Strevens, Chloe Montes; Moolna, Adam; Mossman, Hannah L.; Mukherjee, Nibedita; Munoz-Saez, Andres; Negroes, Nuno; Norfolk, Olivia; Osawa, Takeshi; Papworth, Sarah; Park, Kirsty J.; Pellet, Jerome; Phillott, Andrea D.; Plotnik, Joshua M.; Priatna, Dolly; Ramos, Alejandra G.; Randall, Nicola; Richards, Rob M.; Ritchie, Euan G.; Roberts, David L.; Rocha, Ricardo; Rodriguez, Jon Paul; Sanderson, Roy; Sasaki, Takehiro; Savilaakso, Sini; Sayer, Carl; Sekercioglu, Cagan; Senzaki, Masayuki; Smith, Grania; Smith, Robert J.; Soga, Masashi; Soulsbury, Carl D.; Steer, Mark D.; Stewart, Gavin; Strange, E. F.; Suggitt, Andrew J.; Thompson, Ralph R. J.; Thompson, Stewart; Thornhill, Ian; Trevelyan, R. J.; Usieta, Hope O.; Venter, Oscar; Webber, Amanda D.; White, Rachel L.; Whittingham, Mark J.; Wilby, Andrew; Yarnell, Richard W.; Zamora, Veronica; Sutherland, William J.
    1. To be effective, the next generation of conservation practitioners and managers need to be critical thinkers with a deep understanding of how to make evidence-based decisions and of the value of evidence synthesis. 2. If, as educators, we do not make these priorities a core part of what we teach, we are failing to prepare our students to make an effective contribution to conservation practice. 3. To help overcome this problem we have created open access online teaching materials in multiple languages that are stored in Applied Ecology Resources. So far, 117 educators from 23 countries have acknowledged the importance of this and are already teaching or about to teach skills in appraising or using evidence in conservation decision-making. This includes 145 undergraduate, postgraduate or professional development courses. 4. We call for wider teaching of the tools and skills that facilitate evidence-based conservation and also suggest that providing online teaching materials in multiple languages could be beneficial for improving global understanding of other subject areas.