Explore the vast range of titles available.

The importance of 'evidence based practice' in health and social work has been emphasised by recent policy and legislative initiatives, but how do professionals decide which research findings are valuable and relevant to them? This accessible introduction provides social work students and practitioners with the knowledge they need both to evaluate research and to apply it to their own practice. Exploring the range of research methodologies used in health and social care, from randomised control trials to surveys, interviews, experimental designs and ethnographic approaches, Michael Sheppard discusses the strengths and limitations of each and shows the reader how to identify the assumptions underlying them. Sheppard uses case examples from practice to demonstrate how research messages can be applied in a range of situations, from developing social services for ethnic minority groups to working with an individual suffering from mental illness. Each chapter includes exercises and questions to test the reader's understanding of key concepts in each chapter, as well as examples of research articles for guided discussion. Appraising and Using Social Research in the Human Services is both a core textbook for social work undergraduates and a useful resource for all trainers, practitioners, service managers and postqualifying students in health and social care.

This concise introduction to evidence-based social work practice culls the most salient chapters from the interdisciplinary Evidence-Based Practice Manual to form a student-friendly overview of the issues and interventions they will encounter throughout their BSW or MSW program. LPart I defines terms and critical issues, introducing students to the language and importance of evidence-based practice and critical thinking. Chapters will explain how to search for evidence, how to evaluate what evidence really is, how to ask the right questions, how to develop standards, and how practitioners make use of research. Part II consists of practical applications, with each chapter focusing on a particular intervention or population. Topics include cognitive-behavioral approaches to suicide risks, manualized treatment with children, treating juvenile delinquents, and interventions for OCD, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, PTSD, depression, and recovery. Several chapterss from the special edition of Brief Treatment Crisis Intervention on evidence-based practice as well as two original chapters round out this much-needed introduction to evidence-based social work practice.

The Evidence-Based Practice Manual includes 104 original chapters, each specially written by the most prominent and experienced medical, public health, psychology, social work, criminal justice, and public policy practitioners, researchers, and professors in the United States and Canada. This book is specifically designed with practitioners in mind, providing at-a-glance overviews and direct application chapters. This is the only interdisciplinary volume available for locating and applying evidence-based assessment measures, treatment plans, and interventions. Particular attention has been given to providing practice guidelines and exemplars of evidence-based practice and practice-based research. The Evidence-Based Practice Manual emphasizes and summarizes key elements, issues, concepts, and how-to approaches in the development and application of evidence-based practice. Discussions include program evaluation, quality and operational improvement strategies, research grant applications, validating measurement tools, and utilizing statistical procedures. Concise summaries of the substantive evidence gained from methodologically rigorous quantitative and qualitative research provide make this is an accessible resource for a broad range of practitioners facing the mandate of evidence-based practice in the health and human services.

Background Q-methodology is an approach to studying complex issues of human ‘subjectivity’. Although this approach was developed in the early twentieth century, the value of Q-methodology in healthcare was not recognised until relatively recently. The aim of this review was to scope the empirical healthcare literature to examine the extent to which Q-methodology has been utilised in healthcare over time, including how it has been used and for what purposes. Methods A search of three electronic databases (Scopus, EBSCO-CINAHL Complete, Medline) was conducted. No date restriction was applied. A title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review, was conducted by a team of five reviewers. Included articles were English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles that used Q-methodology (both Q-sorting and inverted factor analysis) in healthcare settings. The following data items were extracted into a purpose-designed Excel spreadsheet: study details (e.g., setting, country, year), reasons for using Q-methodology, healthcare topic area, participants (type and number), materials (e.g., ranking anchors and Q-set), methods (e.g., development of the Q-set, analysis), study results, and study implications. Data synthesis was descriptive in nature and involved frequency counting, open coding and the organisation by data items. Results Of the 2,302 articles identified by the search, 289 studies were included in this review. We found evidence of increased use of Q-methodology in healthcare, particularly over the last 5 years. However, this research remains diffuse, spread across a large number of journals and topic areas. In a number of studies, we identified limitations in the reporting of methods, such as insufficient information on how authors derived their Q-set, what types of analyses they performed, and the amount of variance explained. Conclusions Although Q-methodology is increasingly being adopted in healthcare research, it still appears to be relatively novel. This review highlight commonalities in how the method has been used, areas of application, and the potential value of the approach. To facilitate reporting of Q-methodological studies, we present a checklist of details that should be included for publication.

Background The use of rapid qualitative methods has increased substantially over the past decade in quality improvement and health services research. These methods have gained traction in implementation research and practice, wherein real-time adjustments are often made to optimize processes and outcomes. This brisk increase begs the questions: what does rigor entail in projects that use rapid qualitative analysis (RQA)? How do we define a pragmatic framework to help research teams design and conduct rigorous and valid rapid qualitative projects? How can authors articulate rigor in their methods descriptions? Lastly, how can reviewers evaluate the rigor of rapid qualitative projects?. Methods A team of seven interdisciplinary qualitative methods experts developed a framework for ensuring rigor and validity in RQA and methods suitable for this analytic approach. We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to identify gaps in the literature and then drew upon literature, standard procedures within our teams, and a repository of rapid qualitative training materials to create a planning and reporting framework. We iteratively refined this framework through 11 group working meetings (60-90 minutes each) over the course of one year and invited feedback on items to ensure their completeness, clarity, and comprehensibility. Results The Planning for and Assessing Rigor in Rapid Qualitative Analysis (PARRQA) framework is organized progressively across phases from design to dissemination, as follows: 1) rigorous design (rationale and staffing), 2) semi-structured data collection (pilot and planning), 3) RQA: summary template development (accuracy and calibration), 4) RQA: matrix analysis (matrices), and 5) rapid qualitative data synthesis. Eighteen recommendations across these sections specify best practices for rigor and validity. Conclusions Rapid qualitative methods play a central role in implementation evaluations, with the potential to yield prompt information and insights about context, processes, and relationships. However, guidance on how to assess rigor is nascent. The PARRQA framework enhances the literature by offering criteria to ensure appropriate planning for and assessment of rigor in projects that involve RQA. This framework provides a consensus-based resource to support high-level qualitative methodological rigor in implementation science.

Background In the context of the volume of mixed- and multi-methods studies in health services research, the present study sought to develop an appraisal tool to determine the methodological and reporting quality of such studies when included in systematic reviews. Evaluative evidence regarding the design and use of our existing Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD) was synthesised to enhance and refine it for application across health services research. Methods Secondary data were collected through a literature review of all articles identified using Google Scholar that had cited the QATSDD tool from its inception in 2012 to December 2019. First authors of all papers that had cited the QATSDD ( n =197) were also invited to provide further evaluative data via a qualitative online survey. Evaluative findings from the survey and literature review were synthesised narratively and these data used to identify areas requiring refinement. The refined tool was subject to inter-rater reliability, face and content validity analyses. Results Key limitations of the QATSDD tool identified related to a lack of clarity regarding scope of use of the tool and in the ease of application of criteria beyond experimental psychological research. The Quality Appraisal for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool emerged as a revised tool to address the limitations of the QATSDD. The QuADS tool demonstrated substantial inter-rater reliability (k=0.66), face and content validity for application in systematic reviews with mixed, or multi-methods health services research. Conclusion Our findings highlight the perceived value of appraisal tools to determine the methodological and reporting quality of studies in reviews that include heterogeneous studies. The QuADS tool demonstrates strong reliability and ease of use for application to multi or mixed-methods health services research.

The GRADE-CERQual (‘Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research’) approach provides guidance for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research (or qualitative evidence syntheses). The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. Confidence in the evidence from qualitative evidence syntheses is an assessment of the extent to which a review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. CERQual provides a systematic and transparent framework for assessing confidence in individual review findings, based on consideration of four components: (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data, and (4) relevance. A fifth component, dissemination (or publication) bias, may also be important and is being explored. As with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach for effectiveness evidence, CERQual suggests summarising evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative Summary of Qualitative Findings tables. These tables are designed to communicate the review findings and the CERQual assessment of confidence in each finding. This article is the first of a seven-part series providing guidance on how to apply the CERQual approach. In this paper, we describe the rationale and conceptual basis for CERQual, the aims of the approach, how the approach was developed, and its main components. We also outline the purpose and structure of this series and discuss the growing role for qualitative evidence in decision-making. Papers 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in this series discuss each CERQual component, including the rationale for including the component in the approach, how the component is conceptualised, and how it should be assessed. Paper 2 discusses how to make an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding and how to create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. The series is intended primarily for those undertaking qualitative evidence syntheses or using their findings in decision-making processes but is also relevant to guideline development agencies, primary qualitative researchers, and implementation scientists and practitioners.

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 making an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding and creating a CERQual Evidence Profile and a CERQual Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Methods We developed this guidance by examining the methods used by other GRADE approaches, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We then piloted the guidance on several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the approach. Results Confidence in the evidence is an assessment of the extent to which a review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. Creating a summary of each review finding and deciding whether or not CERQual should be used are important steps prior to assessing confidence. Confidence should be assessed for each review finding individually, based on the judgements made for each of the four CERQual components. Four levels are used to describe the overall assessment of confidence: high, moderate, low or very low. The overall CERQual assessment for each review finding should be explained in a CERQual Evidence Profile and Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Conclusions Structuring and summarising review findings, assessing confidence in those findings using CERQual and creating a CERQual Evidence Profile and Summary of Qualitative Findings table should be essential components of undertaking qualitative evidence syntheses. This paper describes the end point of a CERQual assessment and should be read in conjunction with the other papers in the series that provide information on assessing individual CERQual components.

Background Qualitative synthesis approaches are increasingly used in healthcare research. One of the most commonly utilised approaches is meta-ethnography. This is a systematic approach which synthesises data from multiple studies to enable new insights into patients’ and healthcare professionals’ experiences and perspectives. Meta-ethnographies can provide important theoretical and conceptual contributions and generate evidence for healthcare practice and policy. However, there is currently a lack of clarity and guidance surrounding the data synthesis stages and process. Method This paper aimed to outline a step-by-step method for conducting a meta-ethnography with illustrative examples. Results A practical step-by-step guide for conducting meta-ethnography based on the original seven steps as developed by Noblit & Hare (Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies.,1998) is presented. The stages include getting started, deciding what is relevant to the initial interest, reading the studies, determining how the studies are related, translating the studies into one another, synthesising the translations and expressing the synthesis. We have incorporated adaptations and developments from recent publications. Annotations based on a previous meta-ethnography are provided. These are particularly detailed for stages 4–6, as these are often described as being the most challenging to conduct, but with the most limited amount of guidance available. Conclusion Meta-ethnographic synthesis is an important and increasingly used tool in healthcare research, which can be used to inform policy and practice. The guide presented clarifies how the stages and processes involved in conducting a meta-synthesis can be operationalised.