Jenny Caird

Patients’ and clinicians’ research priorities

Background  If research addresses the questions of relevance to patients and clinicians, decision‐makers will be better equipped to design and deliver health services which meet their needs. To this end, a number of initiatives have engaged patients and clinicians in setting research agendas. This paper aimed to scope the research literature addressing such efforts.

Mediating policy-relevant evidence at speed: are systematic reviews of systematic reviews a useful approach?

When swift, accurate appraisal of evidence is required to inform policy concerning broad research questions, and budgetary constraints limit the employment of large research teams, researchers face a significant challenge which is sometimes met by reviewing existing systematic reviews. In this paper we highlight the challenges inherent in the reviews of reviews (RoR) method in order to advance understanding of this important tool for policy makers. Drawing on our experiences, we present, where possible, potential solutions to these challenges to demonstrate that RoRs, despite their limitations, can be useful for mediating policy-relevant evidence at speed.

Psychosocial Predictors, Assessment, and Outcomes of Cosmetic Procedures: A Systematic Rapid Evidence Assessment

BackgroundRecent breast implant complications led to a UK government policy review of the evidence concerning cosmetic interventions. We synthesised cosmetic intervention research evidence covering psychosocial factors associated with requesting procedures and psychological outcomes, effects of procedures on psychological outcomes, preintervention assessments for identifying those at risk, alternative therapy effectiveness, and issues in achieving informed consent.MethodsUndertaking a systematic rapid evidence assessment, six databases and three journals were searched. Included studies were systematic reviews or primary studies of participants requesting cosmetic procedures; published 2002–2012; containing either psychological or psychosocial measures, a psychological outcome, or evaluation of informed consent. Reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed quality, undertaking narrative synthesis.ResultsMethodological quality of the included 13 systematic reviews and 179 primary studies was low, with wide variation in psychosocial measures. Findings suggest several psychosocial factors (e.g., intimate partner violence) may be associated with requesting cosmetic surgery. Multiple factors (e.g., unrealistic expectations) may predict poor psychological outcomes. Current psychological screening tools focus predominantly on body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) symptoms. Psychological and pharmacological interventions are effective alternative BDD treatments. Patients and doctors bring different needs to informed consent discussions, inconsistently matched to those required by professional ethics, litigation risk, and facilitating profit.ConclusionsSystematically reviewing this literature for UK policy has highlighted that some groups may be at risk of poor post-cosmetic procedure outcomes. Practitioners and patients must explore reasons for seeking cosmetic procedures and discuss all potential results and alternative solutions. Future research should employ more robust methodologies to identify effects in those at risk, led by consensus on a core set of psychological outcomes.Level of Evidence IIIThis journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Interpretive analysis of 85 systematic reviews suggests that narrative syntheses and meta-analyses are incommensurate in argumentation.

Using Toulmins argumentation theory, we analysed the texts of systematic reviews in the area of workplace health promotion to explore differences in the modes of reasoning embedded in reports of narrative synthesis as compared with reports of meta‐analysis. We used framework synthesis, grounded theory and cross‐case analysis methods to analyse 85 systematic reviews addressing intervention effectiveness in workplace health promotion. Two core categories, or ‘modes of reasoning’, emerged to frame the contrast between narrative synthesis and meta‐analysis: practical–configurational reasoning in narrative synthesis (‘what is going on here? What picture emerges?’) and inferential–predictive reasoning in meta‐analysis (‘does it work, and how well? Will it work again?’). Modes of reasoning examined quality and consistency of the included evidence differently. Meta‐analyses clearly distinguished between warrant and claim, whereas narrative syntheses often presented joint warrant–claims. Narrative syntheses and meta‐analyses represent different modes of reasoning. Systematic reviewers are likely to be addressing research questions in different ways with each method. It is important to consider narrative synthesis in its own right as a method and to develop specific quality criteria and understandings of how it is carried out, not merely as a complement to, or second‐best option for, meta‐analysis.