Systematic mapping of checklists for assessing transferability

Refining the CRiSPHe (checklist for reporting research using a simulated patient methodology in Health): a Delphi study

OBJECTIVES

A recent applicability study highlighted the need for the existing checklist for reporting research using a simulated patient methodology (CRiSP) to be clearer and user-friendly. The aim of this study was to update the checklist to address these concerns.

METHODS

A fourth round of the Delphi consensus study, used in the original checklist development work, was conducted. Previous participants, who had expertise in SP methodology, were invited to complete a questionnaire including a list of 13 checklist items developed in the previous study and revised following applicability testing. Closed questions were analysed for frequency. Consensus was predefined as >80% agreement. All items were discussed in a roundtable meeting and further modified as necessary. Responses to open questions were content analysed.

KEY FINDINGS

Twenty-one authors participated. There was a statistical consensus in 12 out of 13 modified checklist items.

CONCLUSIONS

A final reporting checklist for studies in health research using SP methodology has been developed using a consensus approach. Further refinements may be needed to increase the generalizability of the checklist in different contexts.

Case management interventions seeking to counter radicalisation to violence and related forms of violence: A systematic review

Background

Increasingly, counter-radicalisation interventions are using case management approaches to structure the delivery of tailored services to those at risk of engaging in, or engaged in, violent extremism. This review sets out the evidence on case management tools and approaches and is made up of two parts with the following objectives.

Objectives

Part I: (1) Synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of case management tools and approaches in interventions seeking to counter radicalisation to violence. (2) Qualitatively synthesise research examining whether case management tools and approaches are implemented as intended, and the factors that explain how they are implemented. Part II: (3) Synthesise systematic reviews to understand whether case management tools and approaches are effective at countering non-terrorism related interpersonal or collective forms of violence. (4) Qualitatively synthesise research analysing whether case management tools and approaches are implemented as intended, and what influences how they are implemented. (5) Assess the transferability of tools and approaches used in wider violence prevention work to counter-radicalisation interventions.

Search Methods

Search terms tailored for Part I and Part II were used to search research repositories, grey literature sources and academic journals for studies published between 2000 and 2022. Searches were conducted in August and September 2022. Forward and backward citation searches and consultations with experts took place between September 2022 and February 2023. Studies in English, French, German, Russian, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish were eligible.

Selection Criteria

Part I: Studies had to report on a case management intervention, tool or approach, or on specific stages of the case management process. Only experimental and stronger quasi-experimental studies were eligible for inclusion in the analysis of effectiveness. The inclusion criteria for the analysis of implementation allowed for other quantitative designs and qualitative research. Part II: Systematic reviews examining a case management intervention, tool or approach, or stage(s) of the case management process focused on countering violence were eligible for inclusion.

Data Collection and Analysis

Part I: 47 studies were eligible for Part I. No studies met the inclusion criteria for Objective 1; all eligible studies related to Objective 2. Data from these studies was synthesised using a framework synthesis approach and presented narratively. Risk of bias was assessed using the CASP (for qualitative research) and EPHPP (for quantitative research) checklists. Part I: Eight reviews were eligible for Part II. Five reviews met the inclusion criteria for Objective 3, and seven for Objective 4. Data from the studies was synthesised using a framework synthesis approach and presented narratively. Risk of bias was assessed using the AMSTAR II tool.

Findings

Part I: No eligible studies examined effectiveness of tools and approaches. Seven studies examined the implementation of different approaches, or the assumptions underpinning interventions. Clearly defined theories of change were absent, however these interventions were assessed as being implemented in line with their own underlying logic. Forty-three studies analysed the implementation of tools during individual stages of the case management process, and forty-one examined the implementation of this process as-a-whole. Factors which influenced how individual stages and the case management process as a whole were implemented included strong multi-agency working arrangements; the inclusion of relevant knowledge and expertise, and associated training; and the availability of resources. The absence of these facilitators inhibited implementation. Additional implementation barriers included overly risk-oriented logics; public and political pressure; and broader legislation. Twenty-eight studies identified moderators that shaped how interventions were delivered, including delivery context; local context; standalone interventions; and client challenges. Part II: The effectiveness of two interventions - mentoring and multi-systemic therapy - in reducing violent outcomes were each assessed by one systematic review, whilst three reviews analysed the impact that the use of risk assessment tools (n = 2) and polygraphs (n = 1) had on outcomes. All these reviews reported mixed results. Comparable factors to those identified in Part I, such as staff training and expertise and delivery context, were found to shape implementation. On the basis of this modest sample, the research on interventions to counter non-terrorism related violence was assessed to be transferable to counter-radicalisation interventions.

Authors' Conclusions

The effectiveness of existing case management tools and approaches is poorly understood, and research examining the factors that influence how different approaches are implemented is limited. However, there is a growing body of research on the factors which facilitate or generate barriers to the implementation of case management interventions. Many of the factors and moderators relevant to countering radicalisation to violence also impact how case management tools and approaches used to counter other forms of violence are implemented. Research in this wider field seems to have transferable insights for efforts to counter radicalisation to violence. This review provides a platform for further research to test the impact of different tools, and the mechanisms by which they inform outcomes. This work will benefit from using the case management framework as a way of rationalising and analysing the range of tools, approaches and processes that make up case managed interventions to counter radicalisation to violence.

Indigenising systematic reviews with a collaborative model of 'training the trainers'

BACKGROUND

Developing a workforce with the skills to produce and make judicious use of evidence for policy and practice decisions requires trainers who can tailor evidence and training to policy and practice priorities.

AIM

To describe how a collaborative learning model adapted a systematic review course to suit Indian nurse educators and research scholars in the conduct and use of systematic reviews.

DISCUSSION

A collaborative learning team of academics and research scholars brought together expertise in nursing education in India, and evidence synthesis in India and the UK. Participants found the course was highly beneficial, enhanced independent and critical thinking, and instilled them with the confidence and skills to deliver such courses to Indian researchers, nurses and other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSION

Contextualising materials and methods to participants' experiences made learning more relatable. The use of adult learning approaches enabled participants to apply the same approaches when leading training in their own institutions and underpinned long-term sustainable working relationships between facilitators and learners, leading to new studies and new resources to support evidence-informed decision-making.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

An educational intervention on 'indigenising systematic reviews' with online collaborative learning can produce improvements in the knowledge and skills of participants. Advantages of this educational approach include its flexibility, active involvement of participants and sustainable partnership building. The principles and methods used could be replicated in any setting to train trainers.

Underreporting contextual factors preclude the applicability appraisal in primary care randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To assess applicability reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in primary care (PC).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We used a random sample of PC RCTs published between 2000 and 2020 to assess applicability. We extracted data related to setting, population, intervention (including implementation), comparator, outcomes, and context. Based on data availability, we assessed whether the five predefined applicability questions were adequately addressed by each PC RCT.

RESULTS

Adequately described elements that were reported frequently (>50%) included the responsible organization for intervention provision (97, 93.3%), study population characteristics (94, 90.4%), intervention implementation including monitoring and evaluation (92, 88.5%), intervention components (89, 85.6%), time frame (82, 78.8%), baseline prevalence (58, 55.8%), and the type of setting and location (53, 51%). Elements that were often underreported included contextual factors, that is, evidence of differential effects across sociodemographic or other groupings (2, 1.9%), intervention components tailored for specific settings (7, 6.7%), health system structure (32, 30.8%), factors affecting implementation (40, 38.5%) and organization structure (50, 48.1%). The proportion of trials that adequately addressed each applicability question ranged between 1% and 20.2%, while none RCT could address all of them.

CONCLUSION

Underreporting contextual factors jeopardize the appraisal of applicability in PC RCTs.

PROTOCOL: Case management interventions seeking to counter radicalisation to violence: A systematic review of tools and approaches

This systematic review consists of two parts. Part I seeks to synthesise evidence from primary or secondary research studies examining the implementation and effectiveness of case management tools and approaches currently being used to counter radicalisation to violence. Part II is an 'overview of reviews' that seeks to identify relevant and transferable lessons from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of case management tools and approaches used in the broader field of violence prevention that could be applied to counter-radicalisation practice.

User experiences of structured stakeholder engagement to consider transferability: The TRANSFER approach

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform decision-making in health, education, social care and environmental protection. However, decision makers still experience barriers to using reviews, including not knowing how findings might translate to their own contexts, and lack of collaboration with systematic review authors. The TRANSFER approach is a novel method that aims to support review authors to systematically and transparently collaborate with stakeholders to consider context and the transferability of review findings from the beginning of the review process. Such collaboration is intended to improve the usefulness and relevance of review findings for decision makers.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to explore the user experience of the TRANSFER approach conversation guide, and in doing so gain a better understanding of the role and perceived value of stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews for informed decision-making.

METHODS

We conducted four user tests of groups using the guide, organized around simulated meetings between review authors and stakeholders. Review authors led the meeting using the TRANSFER approach conversation guide. We audio-recorded and observed the meetings, collected feedback forms and conducted semi-structured interviews with review authors following the meeting. We analysed the data using framework analysis to examine the user experience of the TRANSFER approach conversation guide and of stakeholder engagement more generally.

RESULTS

Seventeen participants in four user groups participated in the user tests. Most participants were generally positive toward the structured approach using the conversation guide, and felt it would be useful in systematic review projects. We observed examples of misunderstanding of the terminology included in the guide, and received multiple suggestions for how to make the conversation guide more user friendly. We observed numerous challenges related to the hypothetical nature of a user test, including lack of familiarity with the review question/topic among participants and lack of preparation for the meeting.

CONCLUSIONS

Review authors and stakeholders are positive toward using a structured approach to guide collaboration within the context of a systematic review. The TRANSFER conversation guide helps participants to discuss the review question and context in a structured way. Such structured collaboration could help to improve the usefulness and relevance of systematic reviews for decision making by improving the review question, inclusion criteria and consideration of transferability of review findings. The conversation guide needs to be modified to improve user experience. Further research is needed to explore stakeholder collaboration and the use of the TRANSFER conversation guide in systematic review processes.

Considerations for transferability of health technology assessments: a scoping review of tools, methods, and practices

Health technology assessment (HTA) is commonly used to guide evidence-informed decisions to optimize resource use, prioritize policies, and support countries to achieve universal health coverage. Producing HTAs requires time, scientific expertise, and political commitment, but these are not available in all settings - especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) where HTA processes may be less institutionalized. Transferring and adapting existing HTAs to local settings may offer a solution while reducing duplication efforts. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of tools, methods, approaches, and considerations which can aid HTA transfers. We systematically searched (from 2005 to 2020) six databases and, using predefined inclusion criteria, included twenty-two studies. Data extraction followed a structured process, while synthesis was more iterative. We identified a common approach for HTA transfers. It follows the de novo process of undertaking original HTAs, but with additional steps to assess relevance (applicability), quality, and transferability, as well as steps to adapt parameters where necessary. The EUnetHTA Adaptation Toolkit was the only tool that provided guidance for adapting multiple HTA domains. Other tools were specific to systematic reviews (n = 1) or economic evaluations (n = 12), where one provided guidance for systematic reviews of economic evaluations. Eight papers reported transferring an HTA, with only one transferring to an LMIC. Finally, we reported issues that may facilitate or hinder transferability. In conclusion, we identified fourteen transfer approaches in the form of guidance or checklists, but harmonized and pragmatic guidance for HTA transfers to suit settings with limited HTA capacity seems warranted.

Quality aspects of hospital-based physiotherapy from the perspective of key stakeholders: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

For the design of a robust quality system for hospital-based physiotherapy, it is important to know what key stakeholders consider quality to be.

OBJECTIVE

To explore key stakeholders' views on quality of hospital-based physiotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted 53 semi-structured interviews with 62 representatives of five key stakeholder groups of hospital-based physiotherapy: medical specialists, hospital managers, boards of directors, multidisciplinary colleagues and patients. Audio recordings of these interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed with thematic analysis.

RESULTS

According to the interviewees, quality of hospital-based physiotherapy is characterised by: (1) a human approach, (2) context-specific and up-to-date applicable knowledge and expertise, (3) providing the right care in the right place at the right time, (4) a proactive departmental policy in which added value for the hospital is transparent, (5) professional development and innovation based on a vision on science and developments in healthcare, (6) easy access and awareness of one's own and others' position within the interdisciplinary cooperation and (7) ensuring a continuum of care with the inclusion of preclinical and postclinical care of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Important quality aspects in the perspective of all stakeholders were an expertise that matches the specific pathology of the patient, the hospital-based physiotherapist being a part of the care team, and the support and supervision of all patients concerning physical functioning during the hospitalisation period. Whereas patients mainly mentioned the personal qualities of the physiotherapist, the other stakeholders mainly focused on professional and organisational factors. The results of this study offer opportunities for hospital-based physiotherapy to improve the quality of provided care seen from the perspective of key stakeholders.

Indirectness (transferability) is critical when considering existing economic evaluations for GRADE Clinical Practice Guidelines: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

GRADE practice guideline developers often perform systematic reviews of potential economic evaluations to inform recommendation decision-making. We aimed to identify indirectness characteristics of economic evaluations, related to GRADE evidence-to-decision (EtD) theoretical frameworks, that influence selection of these articles.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and EconLit were systematically searched to May 2020 to identify indirectness characteristics relevant for economic evaluation transferability to GRADE evidence-to-decision (EtD) theoretical frameworks. Four reviewers screened citations to identify articles of any type that explored study characteristics most important or relevant to economic evaluation transferability, restricted to English language We generated frequencies of article features, used thematic analysis to summarize study characteristics and assessed certainty in the evidence using GRADE-CERQual.

RESULTS

We included 57 articles, with a dearth of empirical literature - some may have been missed. We identified 8 general themes and 28 sub-themes most important to transferability from 41% of articles. Moderate-to-high confidence evidence suggested that GRADE EtD domains of population, intervention and comparison research question elements, resource use estimation and methodology, and provider and decision-maker acceptability are most important indirectness study characteristics that economists consider when choosing economic evaluation outcomes for use in recommendation decision-making.

CONCLUSION

We have identified factors important for guideline developers to consider when selecting economic evaluations as research evidence. An economic competency on the development team facilitates these endeavors. This supports the GRADE Working Group's tenant of transparent reporting or availability of sufficient information elsewhere to assess indirectness.

Identification of tools used to assess the external validity of randomized controlled trials in reviews: a systematic review of measurement properties

Background

Internal and external validity are the most relevant components when critically appraising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews. However, there is no gold standard to assess external validity. This might be related to the heterogeneity of the terminology as well as to unclear evidence of the measurement properties of available tools. The aim of this review was to identify tools to assess the external validity of RCTs. It was further, to evaluate the quality of identified tools and to recommend the use of individual tools to assess the external validity of RCTs in future systematic reviews.

Methods

A two-phase systematic literature search was performed in four databases: PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO via OVID, and CINAHL via EBSCO. First, tools to assess the external validity of RCTs were identified. Second, studies investigating the measurement properties of these tools were selected. The measurement properties of each included tool were appraised using an adapted version of the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines.

Results

38 publications reporting on the development or validation of 28 included tools were included. For 61% (17/28) of the included tools, there was no evidence for measurement properties. For the remaining tools, reliability was the most frequently assessed property. Reliability was judged as “sufficient” for three tools (very low certainty of evidence). Content validity was rated as “sufficient” for one tool (moderate certainty of evidence).

Conclusions

Based on these results, no available tool can be fully recommended to assess the external validity of RCTs in systematic reviews. Several steps are required to overcome the identified difficulties to either adapt and validate available tools or to develop a better suitable tool.

Trial registration

Prospective registration at Open Science Framework (OSF): 10.17605/OSF.IO/PTG4D.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01561-5.

Assessing transferability in systematic reviews of health economic evaluations – a review of methodological guidance

Objective

For assessing cost-effectiveness, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) organisations may use primary economic evaluations (P-HEs) or Systematic Reviews of Health Economic evaluations (SR-HEs). A prerequisite for meaningful results of SR-HEs is that the results from existing P-HEs are transferable to the decision context (e.g, HTA jurisdiction). A particularly pertinent issue is the high variability of costs and resource needs across jurisdictions. Our objective was to review the methods documents of HTA organisations and compare their recommendations on considering transferability in SR-HE.

Methods

We systematically hand searched the webpages of 158 HTA organisations for relevant methods documents from 8th January to 31st March 2019. Two independent reviewers performed searches and selected documents according to pre-defined criteria. One reviewer extracted data in standardised and piloted tables and a second reviewer checked them for accuracy. We synthesised data using tabulations and in a narrative way.

Results

We identified 155 potentially relevant documents from 63 HTA organisations. Of these, 7 were included in the synthesis. The included organisations have different aims when preparing a SR-HE (e.g. to determine the need for conducting their own P-HE). The recommendations vary regarding the underlying terminology (e.g. transferability/generalisability), the assessment approaches (e.g. structure), the assessment criteria and the integration in the review process.

Conclusion

Only few HTA organisations address the assessment of transferability in their methodological recommendations for SR-HEs. Transferability considerations are related to different purposes. The assessment concepts and criteria are heterogeneous. Developing standards to consider transferability in SR-HEs is desirable.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01536-6.

A Rapid Review of Interventions to Prevent First Pregnancy among Adolescents and Its Applicability to Latin America

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To summarize recent literature on the effectiveness of interventions to prevent adolescent pregnancy and to explore the applicability of these interventions to Latin America (LA). Design, Setting, Participants, Interventions, and Main Outcome Measures: We carried out a rapid review of the literature (2005-2019). Studies were included if: they evaluated interventions targeting adolescents and prevention of pregnancy; they used a randomized controlled design; and pregnancy was measured as an outcome. Applicability of the interventions to LA was assessed using the following information: target population; intervention design and resources; type, skills, and training of providers; system arrangements; and acceptability and social context.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included, 5 described interventions in African countries, 2 in the United Kingdom, and 2 in the United States. Interventions were rated as highly applicable to LA in the context of target population, profile of the providers, and design; however, variations arose when assessing system arrangements and social context. Incentive-based interventions showed significant effects in the prevention of adolescent pregnancy and were rated as highly applicable.

CONCLUSION

This review provides professionals, policymakers, researchers, and educators potential criteria to consider when adapting successful evidence-based interventions to prevent adolescent pregnancy in LA.

Relationship between Urban Green Spaces and Cancer: A Scoping Review

This scoping study aims to explore the relationships between urban green spaces (UGSs) and the onset, remission and recovery of cancer. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews (protocol published in 2018). Eligibility criteria for papers were: (1) to be concerned with UGSs, (2) reporting effects of UGSs on cancer-related outcomes including direct or indirect measures, (3) reporting randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, case studies, observational studies, non-comparative studies, (4) in English or French. The search covered primary studies in the published and unpublished (grey) literatures searching by hand and electronic databases (MEDLINE, Green File, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and ScienceDirect). Among 1703 records screened by two reviewers independently, 29 were included for qualitative synthesis. We classify the cancers concerned and the effects reported i.e., protective effect, risk or without association. The most investigated cancers are bladder, breast and lung cancer. Our study also identified contributing factors and their mediating effects between UGSs and cancer. Even though the strength of the evidence of the associations between UGSs and cancer is still weak due to the low number of studies and their design, results highlight the wide variety of possible mediating factors between the use of green spaces and cancer occurrence, remission and/or prevention. Knowledge gaps and future research perspectives should be oriented to qualitative research on protective factors with an attention to equity in UGS access and use.

A Commentary on Blue Zones®: A Critical Review of Age-Friendly Environments in the 21st Century and Beyond

This paper explores the intersection of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) concepts of age-friendly communities and The Blue Zones^® checklists and how the potential of integrating the two frameworks for the development of a contemporary framework can address the current gaps in the literature as well as consider the inclusion of technology and environmental press. The commentary presented here sets out initial thoughts and explorations that have the potential to impact societies on a global scale and provides recommendations for a roadmap to consider new ways to think about the impact of health and wellbeing of older adults and their families. Additionally, this paper highlights both the strengths and the weaknesses of the aforementioned checklists and frameworks by examining the literature including the WHO age-friendly framework, the smart age-friendly ecosystem (SAfE) framework and the Blue Zones^® checklists. We argue that gaps exist in the current literature and take a critical approach as a way to be inclusive of technology and the environments in which older adults live. This commentary contributes to the fields of gerontology, gerontechnology, anthropology, and geography, because we are proposing a roadmap which sets out the need for future work which requires multi- and interdisciplinary research to be conducted for the respective checklists to evolve.

Assessing context suitability (generalizability, external validity, applicability or transferability) of findings in evidence syntheses in healthcare-An integrative review of methodological guidance

BACKGROUND

Evidence syntheses provide the basis for evidence-based decision making in healthcare. To judge the certainty of findings for the specific decision context evidence syntheses should consider context suitability (ie, generalizability, external validity, applicability or transferability). Our objective was to determine the status quo and to provide a comprehensive overview of existing methodological recommendations of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Systematic Review (SR) producing organizations in assessing context suitability of evidence on effectiveness of health care interventions. Additionally, we analyzed similarities and differences between the recommendations.

METHODS

In this Integrative Review we performed a structured search for methods documents from evidence synthesis producing organizations that include recommendations on appraising context suitability in effectiveness assessments. Two reviewers independently selected documents according to predefined eligibility criteria. Data were extracted in standardized and piloted tables by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. We performed a thematic analysis to identify and summarize the main themes and categories regarding recommended context suitability assessments.

RESULTS

We included 14 methods documents of 12 organizations in our synthesis. Assessment approaches are very heterogeneous both regarding the general concepts (eg, integration in the evidence synthesis preparation process) and the content of assessments (eg, assessment criteria).

CONCLUSION

Some heterogeneity seems to be justified because of the need to tailor the assessment to different settings and medical areas. However, most differences were inexplicable. More harmonization is desirable and appears possible.

The TRANSFER Approach for assessing the transferability of systematic review findings

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews are a key input to health and social welfare decisions. Studies included in systematic reviews often vary with respect to contextual factors that may impact on how transferable review findings are to the review context. However, many review authors do not consider the transferability of review findings until the end of the review process, for example when assessing confidence in the evidence using GRADE or GRADE-CERQual. This paper describes the TRANSFER Approach, a novel approach for supporting collaboration between review authors and stakeholders from the beginning of the review process to systematically and transparently consider factors that may influence the transferability of systematic review findings.

METHODS

We developed the TRANSFER Approach in three stages: (1) discussions with stakeholders to identify current practices and needs regarding the use of methods to consider transferability, (2) systematic search for and mapping of 25 existing checklists related to transferability, and (3) using the results of stage two to develop a structured conversation format which was applied in three systematic review processes.

RESULTS

None of the identified existing checklists related to transferability provided detailed guidance for review authors on how to assess transferability in systematic reviews, in collaboration with decision makers. The content analysis uncovered seven categories of factors to consider when discussing transferability. We used these to develop a structured conversation guide for discussing potential transferability factors with stakeholders at the beginning of the review process. In response to feedback and trial and error, the TRANSFER Approach has developed, expanding beyond the initial conversation guide, and is now made up of seven stages which are described in this article.

CONCLUSIONS

The TRANSFER Approach supports review authors in collaborating with decision makers to ensure an informed consideration, from the beginning of the review process, of the transferability of the review findings to the review context. Further testing of TRANSFER is needed.

Qualitative evidence syntheses: Assessing the relative contributions of multi-context and single-context reviews

AIMS

To examine the strengths and weaknesses of multi-context (international) qualitative evidence syntheses in comparison with single-context (typically single-country) reviews. We compare a multi-country synthesis with single-context syntheses on facility-based delivery in Nigeria and Kenya.

DESIGN

Discussion paper.

BACKGROUND

Qualitative evidence increasingly contributes to decision-making. International organizations commission multi-context reviews of qualitative evidence to gain a comprehensive picture of similarities and differences across comparable (e.g., low- and middle-income) countries. Such syntheses privilege breadth over contextual detail, risking inappropriate interpretation and application of review findings. Decision-makers value single-context syntheses that account for the contexts of their populations and health services. We explore how findings from multi- and single-context syntheses contribute against a conceptual framework (adequacy, coherence, methodological limitations and relevance) that underpins the GRADE Confidence in Evidence of Reviews of Qualitative Evidence approach.

DATA SOURCES

Included studies and findings from a multi-context qualitative evidence synthesis (2001-2013) and two single-context syntheses (Nigeria, 2006-2017; and Kenya, 2002-2016; subsequently updated and revised).

FINDINGS

Single-context reviews contribute cultural, ethnic and religious nuances and specific health system factors (e.g., use of a voucher system). Multi-context reviews contribute to universal health concerns and to generic health system concerns (e.g., access and availability).

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Nurse decision-makers require relevant, timely and context-sensitive evidence to inform clinical and managerial decision-making. This discussion paper informs future commissioning and use of multi- and single-context qualitative evidence syntheses.

CONCLUSION

Multi- and single-context syntheses fulfil complementary functions. Single-context syntheses add nuances not identifiable in the remit and timescales of a multi-context review. Impact This study offers a unique comparison between multi-context and single country (Nigeria and Kenya) qualitative syntheses exploring facility-based birth. Clear strengths and weaknesses were identified to inform commissioning and application of future syntheses. Characteristics can inform the commissioning of single- and multi-context nursing-oriented reviews across the world.

When "Little Is Known" Is Not Entirely True

Research in nursing education often involves addressing problems and topics of interest to scholars from numerous fields outside of nursing-and to nurse educators from around the globe. Although it is sometimes true that little is known about a given topic of interest to nursing education researchers, often more is known about the topic if researchers consider evidence with extradisciplinary and international origins. In this Methodology Corner article, a framework for evaluating the applicability and transferability of study findings is presented alongside examples of how the framework can be operationalized to expand the evidence base from which nursing education researchers can draw when designing studies of their own. [J Nurs Educ. 2019;58(5):257-259.].