Background: Qualitative synthesis has become more commonplace in recent years. Metaethnography is one of several methods for synthesising qualitative research and is being used increasingly within health care research. However, many aspects of the steps in the process remain ill-defined.

BackgroundTuberculosis (TB) is a major contributor to the global burden of disease and has received considerable attention in recent years, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where it is closely associated with HIV/AIDS. Poor adherence to treatment is common despite various interventions aimed at improving treatment completion. Lack of a comprehensive and holistic understanding of barriers to and facilitators of, treatment adherence is currently a major obstacle to finding effective solutions. The aim of this systematic review of qualitative studies was to understand the factors considered important by patients, caregivers and health care providers in contributing to TB medication adherence.Methods and FindingsWe searched 19 electronic databases (1966–February 2005) for qualitative studies on patients', caregivers', or health care providers' perceptions of adherence to preventive or curative TB treatment with the free text terms “Tuberculosis AND (adherence OR compliance OR concordance)”. We supplemented our search with citation searches and by consulting experts. For included studies, study quality was assessed using a predetermined checklist and data were extracted independently onto a standard form. We then followed Noblit and Hare's method of meta-ethnography to synthesize the findings, using both reciprocal translation and line-of-argument synthesis. We screened 7,814 citations and selected 44 articles that met the prespecified inclusion criteria. The synthesis offers an overview of qualitative evidence derived from these multiple international studies. We identified eight major themes across the studies: organisation of treatment and care; interpretations of illness and wellness; the financial burden of treatment; knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about treatment; law and immigration; personal characteristics and adherence behaviour; side effects; and family, community, and household support. Our interpretation of the themes across all studies produced a line-of-argument synthesis describing how four major factors interact to affect adherence to TB treatment: structural factors, including poverty and gender discrimination; the social context; health service factors; and personal factors. The findings of this study are limited by the quality and foci of the included studies.ConclusionsAdherence to the long course of TB treatment is a complex, dynamic phenomenon with a wide range of factors impacting on treatment-taking behaviour. Patients' adherence to their medication regimens was influenced by the interaction of a number of these factors. The findings of our review could help inform the development of patient-centred interventions and of interventions to address structural barriers to treatment adherence.

BackgroundDiabetes self-management education (DSME) can be delivered in many forms. Group based DSME is widespread due to being a cheaper method and the added advantages of having patient meet and discuss with each other. assess effects of group-based DSME compared to routine treatment on clinical, lifestyle and psychosocial outcomes in type-2 diabetes patients.MethodsA systematic review with meta-analysis. Computerised bibliographic database were searched up to January 2008 for randomised controlled trials evaluating group-based DSME for adult type-2 diabetics versus routine treatment where the intervention had at least one session and =/>6 months follow-up. At least two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality.ResultsIn total 21 studies (26 publications, 2833 participants) were included. Of all the participants 4 out of 10 were male, baseline age was 60 years, BMI 31.6, HbA1c 8.23%, diabetes duration 8 years and 82% used medication. For the main clinical outcomes, HbA1c was significantly reduced at 6 months (0.44% points; P = 0.0006, 13 studies, 1883 participants), 12 months (0.46% points; P = 0.001, 11 studies, 1503 participants) and 2 years (0.87% points; P < 0.00001, 3 studies, 397 participants) and fasting blood glucose levels were also significantly reduced at 12 months (1.26 mmol/l; P < 0.00001, 5 studies, 690 participants) but not at 6 months. For the main lifestyle outcomes, diabetes knowledge was improved significantly at 6 months (SMD 0.83; P = 0.00001, 6 studies, 768 participants), 12 months (SMD 0.85; P < 0.00001, 5 studies, 955 participants) and 2 years (SMD 1.59; P = 0.03, 2 studies, 355 participants) and self-management skills also improved significantly at 6 months (SMD 0.55; P = 0.01, 4 studies, 534 participants). For the main psychosocial outcomes, there were significant improvement for empowerment/self-efficacy (SMD 0.28, P = 0.01, 2 studies, 326 participants) after 6 months. For quality of life no conclusion could be drawn due to high heterogeneity. For the secondary outcomes there were significant improvements in patient satisfaction and body weight at 12 months for the intervention group. There were no differences between the groups in mortality rate, body mass index, blood pressure and lipid profile.ConclusionsGroup-based DSME in people with type 2 diabetes results in improvements in clinical, lifestyle and psychosocial outcomes.

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers.In this article, we discuss the following three questions: What is evidence? What is the role of research evidence in informing health policy decisions? What is evidence-informed policymaking?Evidence-informed health policymaking is an approach to policy decisions that aims to ensure that decision making is well-informed by the best available research evidence. It is characterised by the systematic and transparent access to, and appraisal of, evidence as an input into the policymaking process. The overall process of policymaking is not assumed to be systematic and transparent. However, within the overall process of policymaking, systematic processes are used to ensure that relevant research is identified, appraised and used appropriately. These processes are transparent in order to ensure that others can examine what research evidence was used to inform policy decisions, as well as the judgements made about the evidence and its implications. Evidence-informed policymaking helps policymakers gain an understanding of these processes.

ObjectiveWorldwide, an estimated 125 million girls and women live with female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). We aimed to systematically review the evidence for physical health risks associated with FGM/C.DesignWe searched 15 databases to identify studies (up to January 2012). Selection criteria were empirical studies reporting physical health outcomes from FGM/C, affecting females with any type of FGM/C, irrespective of ethnicity, nationality and age. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, applied eligibility criteria, assessed methodological study quality and extracted full-text data. To derive overall risk estimates, we combined data from included studies using the Mantel-Haenszel method for unadjusted dichotomous data and the generic inverse-variance method for adjusted data. Outcomes that were sufficiently similar across studies and reasonably resistant to biases were aggregated in meta-analyses. We applied the instrument Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess the extent to which we have confidence in the effect estimates.ResultsOur search returned 5109 results, of which 185 studies (3.17 million women) satisfied the inclusion criteria. The risks of systematic and random errors were variable and we focused on key outcomes from the 57 studies with the best available evidence. The most common immediate complications were excessive bleeding, urine retention and genital tissue swelling. The most valid and statistically significant associations for the physical health sequelae of FGM/C were seen on urinary tract infections (unadjusted RR=3.01), bacterial vaginosis (adjusted OR (AOR)=1.68), dyspareunia (RR=1.53), prolonged labour (AOR=1.49), caesarean section (AOR=1.60), and difficult delivery (AOR=1.88).ConclusionsWhile the precise estimation of the frequency and risk of immediate, gynaecological, sexual and obstetric complications is not possible, the results weigh against the continuation of FGM/C and support the diagnosis and management of girls and women suffering the physical risks of FGM/C.Trial registration numberThis study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012003321.

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers.Policy dialogues allow research evidence to be considered together with the views, experiences and tacit knowledge of those who will be involved in, or affected by, future decisions about a high-priority issue. Increasing interest in the use of policy dialogues has been fuelled by a number of factors: 1. The recognition of the need for locally contextualised 'decision support' for policymakers and other stakeholders 2. The recognition that research evidence is only one input into the decision-making processes of policymakers and other stakeholders 3. The recognition that many stakeholders can add significant value to these processes, and 4. The recognition that many stakeholders can take action to address high-priority issues, and not just policymakers. In this article, we suggest questions to guide those organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the dialogue address a high-priority issue? 2. Does the dialogue provide opportunities to discuss the problem, options to address the problem, and key implementation considerations? 3. Is the dialogue informed by a pre-circulated policy brief and by a discussion about the full range of factors that can influence the policymaking process? 4. Does the dialogue ensure fair representation among those who will be involved in, or affected by, future decisions related to the issue? 5. Does the dialogue engage a facilitator, follow a rule about not attributing comments to individuals, and not aim for consensus? 6. Are outputs produced and follow-up activities undertaken to support action?

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers.Policy briefs are a relatively new approach to packaging research evidence for policymakers. The first step in a policy brief is to prioritise a policy issue. Once an issue is prioritised, the focus then turns to mobilising the full range of research evidence relevant to the various features of the issue. Drawing on available systematic reviews makes the process of mobilising evidence feasible in a way that would not otherwise be possible if individual relevant studies had to be identified and synthesised for every feature of the issue under consideration. In this article, we suggest questions that can be used to guide those preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the policy brief address a high-priority issue and describe the relevant context of the issue being addressed? 2. Does the policy brief describe the problem, costs and consequences of options to address the problem, and the key implementation considerations? 3. Does the policy brief employ systematic and transparent methods to identify, select, and assess synthesised research evidence? 4. Does the policy brief take quality, local applicability, and equity considerations into account when discussing the synthesised research evidence? 5. Does the policy brief employ a graded-entry format? 6. Was the policy brief reviewed for both scientific quality and system relevance?

BackgroundIn many low- and middle-income countries women are encouraged to give birth in clinics and hospitals so that they can receive care from skilled birth attendants. A skilled birth attendant (SBA) is a health worker such as a midwife, doctor, or nurse who is trained to manage normal pregnancy and childbirth. (S)he is also trained to identify, manage, and refer any health problems that arise for mother and baby. The skills, attitudes and behaviour of SBAs, and the extent to which they work in an enabling working environment, impact on the quality of care provided. If any of these factors are missing, mothers and babies are likely to receive suboptimal care.ObjectivesTo explore the views, experiences, and behaviours of skilled birth attendants and those who support them; to identify factors that influence the delivery of intrapartum and postnatal care in low- and middle-income countries; and to explore the extent to which these factors were reflected in intervention studies.Search methodsOur search strategies specified key and free text terms related to the perinatal period, and the health provider, and included methodological filters for qualitative evidence syntheses and for low- and middle-income countries. We searched MEDLINE, OvidSP (searched 21 November 2016), Embase, OvidSP (searched 28 November 2016), PsycINFO, OvidSP (searched 30 November 2016), POPLINE, K4Health (searched 30 November 2016), CINAHL, EBSCOhost (searched 30 November 2016), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (searched 15 August 2013), Web of Science (searched 1 December 2016), World Health Organization Reproductive Health Library (searched 16 August 2013), and World Health Organization Global Health Library for WHO databases (searched 1 December 2016).Selection criteriaWe included qualitative studies that focused on the views, experiences, and behaviours of SBAs and those who work with them as part of the team. We included studies from all levels of health care in low- and middle-income countries.Data collection and analysisOne review author extracted data and assessed study quality, and another review author checked the data. We synthesised data using the best fit framework synthesis approach and assessed confidence in the evidence using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. We used a matrix approach to explore whether the factors identified by health workers in our synthesis as important for providing maternity care were reflected in the interventions evaluated in the studies in a related intervention review.Main resultsWe included 31 studies that explored the views and experiences of different types of SBAs, including doctors, midwives, nurses, auxiliary nurses and their managers. The included studies took place in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.Our synthesis pointed to a number of factors affecting SBAs’ provision of quality care. The following factors were based on evidence assessed as of moderate to high confidence. Skilled birth attendants reported that they were not always...