Search

The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group (CQIMG) develops and publishes guidance on the synthesis of qualitative and mixed-method evidence from process evaluations. Despite a proliferation of methods for the synthesis of qualitative research, less attention has focused on how to integrate these syntheses within intervention effectiveness reviews. In this paper we report updated guidance from the group on approaches, methods and tools which can be used to integrate the findings from quantitative studies evaluating intervention effectiveness with those from qualitative studies and process evaluations. We draw on conceptual analyses of mixed methods systematic review designs and the range of methods and tools that have been used in published reviews that have successfully integrated different types of evidence. We outline five key methods and tools as devices for integration which vary in terms of the levels at which integration takes place; the specialist skills and expertise required within the review team; and their appropriateness in the context of limited evidence. In situations where the requirement is the integration of qualitative and process evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews, we recommend the use of a sequential approach. Here evidence from each tradition is synthesised separately using methods consistent with each tradition before integration takes place using a common framework. Reviews which integrate qualitative and process evaluation evidence alongside quantitative evidence on intervention effectiveness in a systematic way are rare. This guidance aims to support review teams to achieve integration and we encourage further development through reflection and formal testing.

The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group develop and publish guidance on the synthesis of qualitative and mixed-method implementation evidence. Choice of appropriate methodologies, methods and tools is essential when developing a rigorous protocol and conducting the synthesis. Cochrane authors who conduct qualitative evidence syntheses have thus far used a small number of relatively simple methods to address similarly written questions. Cochrane has invested in methodological work to develop new tools and to encourage the production of exemplar reviews to show the value of more innovative methods that address a wider range of questions. In this paper in the series we report updated guidance on the selection of tools to assess methodological limitations in qualitative studies, and methods to extract and synthesise qualitative evidence. We recommend application of GRADE-CERQual to assess confidence in qualitative synthesised findings. This guidance aims to support review authors to undertake a qualitative evidence synthesis that is intended to be integrated subsequently with the findings of one or more Cochrane reviews of the effects of similar interventions. The review of intervention effects may be undertaken concurrently with or separate to the qualitative evidence synthesis. We encourage further development through reflection and formal testing.

This paper updates previous Cochrane guidance on question formulation,searching and protocol development, reflecting recent developments in methods for conducting qualitative evidence syntheses to inform Cochrane intervention reviews. Examples are used to illustrate how decisions about boundaries for a review are formed via an iterative process of constructing lines of inquiry, and mapping the information available to ascertain whether evidence exists to answer questions related to effectiveness, implementation, feasibility, appropriateness, economic evidence, and equity. The process of question formulation allows reviewers to situate the topic in relation to how it informs and explains effectiveness, using the criterion of meaningfulness, appropriateness, feasibility and implementation. Questions related to complex questions and interventions can be structured by drawing on an increasingly wide range of question frameworks. Logic models and theoretical frameworks are useful tools for conceptually mapping the literature to illustrate the complexity of the phenomenon of interest. Further, protocol development may require iterative question formulation and searching. Consequently, the final protocol may function as a guide rather than a prescriptive route-map, particularly in qualitative reviews that ask more exploratory and open ended questions.

Cochrane Reviews are systematic reviews of primary research in human health care and health\ud policy, and are internationally recognized health care resources for use in a decision-making\ud process. Cochrane works collaboratively with contributors around the world to produce\ud authoritative, relevant, and reliable reviews. Cochrane reviews are commonly used in a guideline\ud development process to determine recommendations for practice. The Cochrane Qualitative\ud and Implementation Methods Group provide methodological advice and guidance to\ud Cochrane as well as leading methodological development to benefit the wider qualitative\ud evidence synthesis community. In this introductory paper 1 we briefly outline the evolution\ud of qualitative and mixed-method synthesis methods, the role of qualitative and mixedmethod\ud syntheses in a decision-making process, and the contribution of qualitative and\ud mixed-method syntheses to understanding complexity in complex intervention reviews. We\ud then introduce a series of papers that provide Cochrane guidance on conducting qualitative\ud and mixed-method evidence syntheses for a decision-making context.

Background Randomised controlled trials can provide evidence relevant to assessing the equity impact of an intervention, but such information is often poorly reported. We describe a conceptual framework to identify health equity-relevant randomised trials with the aim of improving the design and reporting of such trials.Methods An interdisciplinary and international research team engaged in an iterative consensus building process to develop and refine the conceptual framework via face-to-face meetings, teleconferences and email correspondence, including findings from a validation exercise whereby two independent reviewers used the emerging framework to classify a sample of randomised trials.Results A randomised trial can usefully be classified as 'health equity relevant' if it assesses the effects of an intervention on the health or its determinants of either individuals or a population who experience ill health due to disadvantage defined across one or more social determinants of health. Health equity-relevant randomised trials can either exclusively focus on a single population or collect data potentially useful for assessing differential effects of the intervention across multiple populations experiencing different levels or types of social disadvantage. Trials that are not classified as 'health equity relevant' may nevertheless provide information that is indirectly relevant to assessing equity impact, including information about individual level variation unrelated to social disadvantage and potentially useful in secondary modelling studies.Conclusion The conceptual framework may be used to design and report randomised trials. The framework could also be used for other study designs to contribute to the evidence base for improved health equity.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials can provide evidence relevant to assessing the equity impact of an intervention, but such information is often poorly reported. We describe a conceptual framework to identify health equity-relevant randomised trials with the aim of improving the design and reporting of such trials. METHODS: An interdisciplinary and international research team engaged in an iterative consensus building process to develop and refine the conceptual framework via face-to-face meetings, teleconferences and email correspondence, including findings from a validation exercise whereby two independent reviewers used the emerging framework to classify a sample of randomised trials. RESULTS: A randomised trial can usefully be classified as 'health equity relevant' if it assesses the effects of an intervention on the health or its determinants of either individuals or a population who experience ill health due to disadvantage defined across one or more social determinants of health. Health equity-relevant randomised trials can either exclusively focus on a single population or collect data potentially useful for assessing differential effects of the intervention across multiple populations experiencing different levels or types of social disadvantage. Trials that are not classified as 'health equity relevant' may nevertheless provide information that is indirectly relevant to assessing equity impact, including information about individual level variation unrelated to social disadvantage and potentially useful in secondary modelling studies. CONCLUSION: The conceptual framework may be used to design and report randomised trials. The framework could also be used for other study designs to contribute to the evidence base for improved health equity.

Foi avaliado o desempenho de bezerros ½ Angus + ½ Nelore produzidos através de três tratamentos: produção de embriões PIV, obtidos de ovócitos de doadoras Nelore provenientes de abatedouro, sem origem conhecida (ABATE) ou aspiração folicularin vivo (OPU) de doadoras oriundas de rebanho com avaliação em programa de Melhoramento Genético (Geneplus-Embrapa). Made available in DSpace on 2020-09-23T08:15:47Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 efeito-merito-genetico-2019.pdf: 686881 bytes, checksum: 39c5e4ebde6dd770219fda61f9a54b25 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciências Veterinárias - Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, MS. Disponível em . Acesso em 18 set. 2020. Orientador: Dr. Ériklis Nogueira, Embrapa Pantanal.

Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-01T23:43:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 tese_11384_TESE_CINTHIA MARA CECATO DA SILVA_LIMA BARRETO_2017_FICHA CATALOGRÁFICA INCLUSA.pdf: 1995190 bytes, checksum: eebe2ef20696a621c0b37aa66ea09a2d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-09-29 Este texto argumentativo propõe instigar reflexões que aproximem a produção literária do escritor carioca Lima Barreto (1881-1922) à literatura de teor testemunhal. Analisando os enredos das obras que tiveram como palco o chão do manicômio, Diário do hospício (2010) e O cemitério dos vivos (2010), buscou-se investigar quatro aspectos imprescindíveis para fortalecer os argumentos proferidos. São eles: o hospício, a loucura, as práticas asilares e, finalmente, o testemunho. Aglutinados como em uma teia , almejam sustentar as hipóteses levantadas, qualificando o sistema psiquiátrico brasileiro de outrora como ineficiente, uma vez que funcionava apesar das intenções iniciais de aprimoramento muito mais como prática de dominação da elite, determinada a dar visibilidade ao status de doutor, do que uma instituição de saúde mental apta a tratar a loucura. Para o desenvolvimento desta pesquisa, que vê expostas fraturas coletivas sobrepondo uma literatura exclusivamente de si, houve uma empenhada seleção de estudiosos, quais sejam: Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, Márcio Seligmann-Silva, Beatriz Resende, Antonio Arnoni Prado, Roberto Vecchi, Lilia Moritz Schwarcz, entre outros. Referências cabais para os argumentos, todos, à sua maneira, permitiram encontrar interseções que levam a um ponto em Lima Barreto: entre o que se viveu e o que se escreveu, há rastros que precisam ser recuperados, ainda que literariamente, em honra aos então hóspedes do extinto Hospital Nacional de Alienados.