Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.

Skip to main content

Table 1 Included qualitative studies

From: The effectiveness and acceptability of evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development groups: a mixed-methods systematic review

Author (year, country)

Collection method

Participants

Format(s) evaluated

Topics

Babatunde (2018, England) [40]

Semi-structured interviews (and questionnaires)b

N = 21. Clinicians (11), researchers (5), epidemiologists (3), health service/trial managers (2)

Evidence flowers and summary table

Musculoskeletal conditions

Buljan (2020, Croatia) [41]

Focus groups

N = 20. Patient advocates (9), doctors (4), medical students (7)a

Plain language summary, infographic, scientific abstract

Breech presentation

Busert (2018, International) [42]

Semi-structured interviews

N = 18. Public-health decision-makers

4-page summary with Summary of findings (SoF) table and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) ratings

Food, alcohol, and tobacco portion/packaging

Dobbins (2004, Canada) [43]

Focus groups

N = 46. Medical officers (7), programme managers/coordinators (25), decision-makers (14)

Summary statement

Tobacco control

Hartling (2016, 2017, USA) [44, 45]

Semi-structured interviews

N = 8. Guideline developers (3), healthcare providers (3), research funders (1), health insurers (1)

‘Rapid products’ (evidence inventory, rapid response, rapid review)

Venous thromboembolism

Hartling (2018, Canada) [46]

Semi-structured interviews

N = 6. Decision-makers

3-page summary

Youth mental health

Marquez (2018, Canada) [47]

Semi-structured interviews (and survey) b

Semi-structured interviews

N = 11. Healthcare managers (5), policymakers (6)

N = 12. Healthcare managers (5), policymakers (7)

Summary prototype

Healthcare management/services

Mustafa (2015, International) [48]

Semi-structured interviews, workshop discussions

N = 20. Researchers, health professionals, guideline developers

3 formatsc of GRADE evidence tables

Diagnostic test accuracy reviews

Newbery (2013, USA)   [49]

Focus groups (with questionnaires)

Individual feedback (and questionnaires)

N = 15. Health insurer (2), insurance/former policymaker (2), clinicians (3), researchers (2), governmental research directors (2), research consultant (1)

N = 3. Community physicians

7 differently formatted executive summaries

Acute otis media

Opiyo (2013, Kenya)    [50]

Semi-structured interviews

N = 16. Multidisciplinary guideline development group members

SoF tables, graded-entry summary, normal systematic review

Newborn care, hand hygiene

Perrier (2014, Canada) [51]

Focus groups

N = 10. Family physicians

Case-based and evidence-based prototypes

Rosacea

Perrier (2014, Canada) [52]

Focus groups

N = 32. Primary care physicians

Two summary prototypes

Rosacea

Rosenbaum (2011, International) [53]

Semi-structured interviews

N = 18. Policymakers and managers

Short summaries

Healthcare management/services

Rosenbaum (2010, International) [54]

Semi-structured interviews (and workshops)

N = 21. Health professionals, researchers

SoF tables

Deep vein thrombosis

Smith, Totten (2019, USA) [55, 56]

Semi-structured interviews

N = 6. Department director (1), health system experts (4), guideline developers (2)

MAGICapp, Tableau

Chronic pain

Steele (2021, England) [57]

Semi-structured interviews

N = 7. Mental health clinicians

One-page summary, full systematic review

Mental health

Yepes-Nunez (2019, International) [58]

Semi-structured interviews

N = 32. Methodologists (21), meta-analysis users (5), clinicians (6)

SoF tables

Network meta analyses

  1. aPopulation and accompanying RCT not eligible. bNot eligible. cThere were 4 formats in total, but only 3 were shown to the user testing group. Abbreviations: United States of America (USA), Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (DACH), summary of findings (SoF), Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE), MAGIC Making GRADE the Irresistible Choice)