Abstract:Abstract Background Clinical practice guidelines have become increasingly widely used to guide quality improvement of clinical practice. Qualitative research may be a useful way to improve the quality and implementation of guidelines. The methodology for qualitative evidence used in guidelines development is worthy of further research. Methods A comprehensive search was made of WHO, NICE, SIGN, NGC, RNAO, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, CBM, and VIP from January 1, 2011 to February 25, 2020. Guidelines which met IOM criteria and were focused on clinical questions using qualitative research or qualitative evidence, were included. Four authors extracted significant information and entered this onto data extraction forms. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to evaluate the guidelines’ quality. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 17.0 and R version 3.3.2. Results Sixty four guidelines were identified. The overall quality of the guidelines was high (almost over 60%). Domain 1 (Scope and Purpose) was ranked the highest with a median score of 83% (IQ 78–83). Domain 2 (Stakeholder involvement) and Domain 5 (Applicability) were ranked the lowest with median scores of 67% (IQ 67–78) and 67% (IQ 63–73) respectively. 20% guidelines used qualitative research to identify clinical questions. 86% guidelines used qualitative evidence to support recommendations (mainly based on primary studies, a few on qualitative evidence synthesis). 19% guidelines applied qualitative evidence when considering facilitators and barriers to recommendations’ implementation. 52% guideline developers evaluated the quality of the primary qualitative research study using the CASP tool or NICE checklist for qualitative studies. No guidelines evaluated the quality of qualitative evidence synthesis to formulate recommendations. 17% guidelines presented the level of qualitative research using the grade criteria of evidence and recommendation in different forms such as I, III, IV, very low. 28% guidelines described the grades of the recommendations supported by qualitative and quantitative evidence. No guidelines described the grade of recommendations only supported by qualitative evidence. Conclusions The majority of the included guidelines were high-quality. Qualitative evidence was mainly used to identify clinical questions, support recommendations, and consider facilitators and barriers to implementation of recommendations’. However, more attention needs to be paid to the methodology. For example, no experts proficient in qualitative research were involved in guideline development groups, no assessment of the quality of qualitative evidence synthesis was included and there was lack of details reported on the level of qualitative evidence or grade of recommendations.

Evidence to decision frameworks enabled structured and explicit development of healthcare recommendations

GRADE guidance 23: Considering cost-effectiveness evidence in moving from evidence to health-related recommendations

Editor's Choice - European Society for Vascular Surgery Clinical Practice Guideline Development Scheme: An Overview of Evidence Quality Assessment Methods, Evidence to Decision Frameworks, and Reporting Standards in Guideline Development

Evidence-informed guidelines in oral health: insights from a systematic survey

Framework for the synthesis of non-randomised studies and randomised controlled trials: a guidance on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis for healthcare decision making

GRADE Guidance 39: Using GRADE-ADOLOPMENT to adopt, adapt or create contextualized recommendations from source guidelines and evidence syntheses

An exploration of how developers use qualitative evidence: content analysis and critical appraisal of guidelines

DOP02 Developing explicit thresholds for outcomes to inform (GRADE) Evidence to Decision frameworks for Inflammatory Bowel Disease guidelines

"Going into the black box": a policy analysis of how the World Health Organization uses evidence to inform guideline recommendations

The maze of real-world evidence frameworks: from a desert to a jungle! An environmental scan and comparison across regulatory and health technology assessment agencies

Research evidence communication for policy-makers: a rapid scoping review on frameworks, guidance and tools, and barriers and facilitators

Assessing the impact of knowledge communication and dissemination strategies targeted at health policy-makers and managers: an overview of systematic reviews

Interventions to enhance the use of Evidence Based Decision Making for Quality Care among Nurses: A Systematic Review

in-DEPtH framework: evidence- in formed, co-creation framework for the D esign, E valuation and P rocuremen t of H ealth services

The NICE Evidence Standards Framework for digital health and care technologies – Developing and maintaining an innovative evidence framework with global impact

Barriers to making recommendations about medical tests: a qualitative study of European guideline developers

Evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development group members: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol

Evaluation framework study assessing the role, applicability and adherence to good practice of planning support tools for allocation of development aid for health in low-income and middle-income countries

GRADE Guidelines 30: the GRADE approach to assessing the certainty of modeled evidence—An overview in the context of health decision-making

Health priority-setting for official development assistance in low-income and middle-income countries: a Best Fit Framework Synthesis study with primary data from Ethiopia, Nigeria and Tanzania

A review of the quantitative effectiveness evidence synthesis methods used in public health intervention guidelines