Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:39:21.484Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EVIDENCE INFORMED DECISION MAKING: THE USE OF “COLLOQUIAL EVIDENCE” AT NICE

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2015

Tarang Sharma ,
Moni Choudhury ,
Bindweep Kaur ,
Bhash Naidoo ,
Sarah Garner ,
Peter Littlejohns  and
Sophie Staniszewska
Tarang Sharma
Affiliation:
The Nordic Cochrane Centre-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark ts@cochrane.dk, tarangs@gmail.com
Moni Choudhury
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), London, United Kingdom
Bindweep Kaur
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), London, United Kingdom
Bhash Naidoo
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), London, United Kingdom
Sarah Garner
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), London, United Kingdom
Peter Littlejohns
Affiliation:
King's College, London, Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, London, United Kingdom
Sophie Staniszewska
Affiliation:
University of Warwick, RCN Research Institute, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, United Kingdom
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Colloquial evidence (CE) has been described as the informal evidence that helps provide context to other forms of evidence in guidance development. Despite challenges around quality, and the potential biases, the use of CE is becoming increasingly important in assessments where scientific literature is sparse and to also capture the experience of all stakeholders in discussions, including that of experts and patients. We aimed to ascertain how CE was being used at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

Methods: Relevant data corresponding to the use of CE was extracted from all NICE technical and process manuals by two reviewers and quality assured and analyzed by a third reviewer. This was considered in light of the results of a focused literature review and a combined checklist for quality assessment was developed.

Results: At NICE, CE is utilised across all guidance producing programmes and at all stages of development. CE could range from information from experts and patient/carers, grey literature (including evidence from websites and policy reports) and testimony from stakeholders through consultation. Six tools for critical appraisal of CE were available from the literature and a combined best practice checklist has been proposed.

Conclusions: As decisions often need to be made in areas where there is a lack of published scientific evidence, CE is employed. Therefore to ensure its appropriateness the development of a validated CE data quality check-list to assist decision makers is essential and further research in this area is a priority.

Keywords

colloquial evidencechecklistevidence-based healthcaredecision makingguidelinesNICE
Type
Methods
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , 2015 , pp. 138 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Rycroft-Malone, J, Seers, K, Titchen, A, et al. What counts as evidence in evidence-based practice? J Adv Nurs. 2004;47:81–90.Google Scholar
2. Culyer, AJ, Lomas, J. Deliberative processes and evidence-informed decision making in healthcare: Do they work and how might we know? Evid Policy. 2006;2:357–371.Google Scholar
3. Lomas, J, Culyer, AJ, McCutcheon, C, McAuley, L, Law, S. Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance. Ottawa: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; 2005.Google Scholar
4. Dobrow, MJ, Chafe, R, Burchett, HED, Culyer, AJ, Lemieux-Charles, L. Designing deliberative methods for combining heterogeneous evidence: A systematic review and qualitative scan. A report to the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Ottawa: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; 2009.Google Scholar
5. Staniszewska, S, Brett, J, Mockford, C, Barber, R. The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:391–399.Google Scholar
6. Oxford dictionaries online. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ (accessed August 22, 2014).Google Scholar
7. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Weighting up the evidence: Making evidence informed guidance accurate, achievable, and acceptable. A summary of the workshop held on September 29, 2005. Ottawa: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; 2006.Google Scholar
8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). http://www.nice.org.uk/ (accessed September 12, 2013).Google Scholar
9. Sharma, T, Doyle, N, Garner, S, Naidoo, B, Littlejohns, P. NICE supporting England and Wales through times of change. Eurohealth. 2011;17:30–31.Google Scholar
10. Littlejohns, P, Chalkidou, K, Wyatt, J, Pearson, SD. Assessing evidence and prioritizing clinical and public health guidance recommendations: The NICE way. In: Killoran A, Kelly MP, eds. Evidence-based public health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
11. Staniszewska, S, Boardman, F, Gunn, L, et al. The Warwick Patient Experiences Framework: Patient-based evidence in clinical guidelines. Int J Qual Health Care. 2014;26:151–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Culyer, AJ. Deliberative processes in decisions about health care technologies: Combining different types of evidence, values, algorithms and people. London: Office of Health Economics; 2009.Google Scholar
13. Littlejohns, P, Sharma, T, Jeong, K. Social values and health priority setting in England: “Values” based decision making. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26:363–373.Google Scholar
14. Young, JM, Solomon, MJ. How to critically appraise an article. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;6:82–91.Google Scholar
15. Reay, CA, Colechin, ES, Bousfield, DR, Sims, AJ. Review of published literature relating to methods for identifying, synthesis and integration of colloquial evidence. Regional Medical Physics Department Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Final Report RSGT405. 2010.Google Scholar
16. Benzies, KM, Premji, S, Hayden, KA, Serrett, K. State-of-the-evidence reviews: Advantages and challenges of including grey literature. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2006;3:55–61.Google Scholar
17. Coad, J, Hardicre, J, Devitt, P. How to search for and use ‘grey literature’ in research. Nurs Times. 2006;102:35–36.Google Scholar
18. Haig, A, Dozier, M. BEME Guide no 3: Systematic searching for evidence in medical education–Part 1: Sources of information. Med Teach. 2003;25:352–363.Google Scholar
19. Wilson, PR. How to find the good and avoid the bad or ugly: A short guide to tools for rating quality of health information on the Internet. BMJ. 2002;324:598–602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Haig, A, Dozier, M. BEME Guide no 3: Systematic searching for evidence in medical education–Part 2: .Constructing searches. Med. Teach. 2003;25:463–484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. The DISCERN Instrument. http://www.discern.org.uk/index.php (accessed October 7, 2014).Google Scholar
22. Rundall, TG, Martelli, PF, Arroyo, L, et al. The informed decisions toolbox: Tools for knowledge transfer and performance improvement. J Healthc Manag. 2007;52:325–341.Google Scholar
23. Shpilko, I. Locating grey literature on communication disorders. Med Ref Serv Q. 2005;24:67–80.Google Scholar
24. National Network of Libraries of Medicine. Evaluating health websites. http://nnlm.gov/outreach/consumer/evalsite.html (accessed October 7, 2014).Google Scholar
25. Fournier, M. Knowledge mobilization in the context of health technology assessment: An exploratory case study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10:10.Google Scholar
26. Watt, A, Hiller, J, Braunack-Mayer, A, et al. The ASTUTE Health study protocol: Deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment. Implement Sci. 2012;7:101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Patient and public involvement policy. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B41/22/NICE_PPIP_policy_-_final_for_PDF_-_June_2011.pdf (accessed September 17, 2013).Google Scholar
28. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Citizen's council. http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/citizenscouncil/citizens_council.jsp (accessed September 17, 2013).Google Scholar
29. Hopewell, S, McDonald, S, Clarke, MJ, Egger, M. Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;2:MR000010.Google Scholar
30. Lawrence, A. Electronic documents in a print world: Grey literature and the internet. Media Int Aust. 2012;143:122–131.Google Scholar
31. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Motor neurone disease: The use of non-invasive ventilation in the management of motor neurone disease. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2010 July. Report No: NICE CG105.Google Scholar
32. Garrison, LP, Neumann, PJ, Erickson, P, Marshall, D, Mullins, CD. Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: The ISPOR Real-World Data Task Force Report. Value Health. 2007;10:326–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Higgins, JPT, Green, S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed August 22, 2013).Google Scholar
34. Lavis, J, Oxman, A, Lewin, S, Fretheim, A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 9: Assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;16 (Suppl 1):S9.Google Scholar
35. Department of Health. Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_117353 London. (accessed 12 September 2013).Google Scholar
36. Staniszewska, S, Crowe, S, Badenoch, D, et al. The PRIME project: Developing a patient evidence-base. Health Expect. 2010;13:312–322.Google Scholar