Innovative tools for quality assessment: integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs (ICROMS).

OBJECTIVES With the aim to facilitate a more comprehensive review process in public health including patient safety, we established a tool that we have termed ICROMS (Integrated quality Criteria for the Review Of Multiple Study designs), which unifies, integrates and refines current quality criteria for a large range of study designs including qualitative research. STUDY DESIGN Review, pilot testing and expert consensus. METHODS The tool is the result of an iterative four phase process over two years: 1) gathering of established criteria for assessing controlled, non-controlled and qualitative study designs; 2) pilot testing of a first version in two systematic reviews on behavioural change in infection prevention and control and in antibiotic prescribing; 3) further refinement and adding of additional study designs in the context of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control funded project 'Systematic review and evidence-based guidance on organisation of hospital infection control programmes' (SIGHT); 4) scrutiny by the pan-European expert panel of the SIGHT project, which had the objective of ensuring robustness of the systematic review. RESULTS ICROMS includes established quality criteria for randomised studies, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series, and incorporates criteria for non-controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies and qualitative studies. The tool consists of two parts: 1) a list of quality criteria specific for each study design, as well as criteria applicable across all study designs by using a scoring system; 2) a 'decision matrix', which specifies the robustness of the study by identifying minimum requirements according to the study type and the relevance of the study to the review question. The decision matrix directly determines inclusion or exclusion of a study in the review. ICROMS was applied to a series of systematic reviews to test its feasibility and usefulness in the appraisal of multiple study designs. The tool was applicable across a wide range of study designs and outcome measures. CONCLUSION ICROMS is a comprehensive yet feasible appraisal of a large range of study designs to be included in systematic reviews addressing behaviour change studies in patient safety and public health. The tool is sufficiently flexible to be applied to a variety of other domains in health-related research. Beyond its application to systematic reviews, we envisage that ICROMS can have a positive effect on researchers to be more rigorous in their study design and more diligent in their reporting.

[1]  Lorelei Lingard,et al.  Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[2]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  Mary Dixon-Woods,et al.  Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. , 2005, Journal of health services research & policy.

[4]  Lorelei Lingard,et al.  Critically appraising qualitative research , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration , 2013 .

[6]  K. Schulz,et al.  Cohort studies: marching towards outcomes , 2002, The Lancet.

[7]  Scott Reeves,et al.  An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  Aziz Sheikh,et al.  Can We Systematically Review Studies That Evaluate Complex Interventions? , 2009, PLoS medicine.

[9]  R. Hyman Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings (Book) , 1982 .

[10]  A. Harris,et al.  The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in infectious diseases. , 2004, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[11]  K. Devers,et al.  Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. , 2007, Health services research.

[12]  T. Athanasiou,et al.  Reviewing methodologically disparate data: a practical guide for the patient safety research field. , 2012, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[13]  S. Carter,et al.  Justifying Knowledge, Justifying Method, Taking Action: Epistemologies, Methodologies, and Methods in Qualitative Research , 2007, Qualitative health research.

[14]  F Davidoff,et al.  Publication guidelines for quality improvement in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project , 2008, Quality & Safety in Health Care.

[15]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  N. Sevdalis,et al.  Behaviour change strategies to influence antibiotic prescribing in acute care: a systematic review , 2011, BMC Proceedings.

[17]  E. Perencevich,et al.  Infection prevention and comparative effectiveness research. , 2011, JAMA.

[18]  S. Pocock,et al.  Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration , 2007, Epidemiology.

[19]  M. Dixon-Woods,et al.  Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups , 2006 .

[20]  Ray Pawson,et al.  RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews , 2013, BMC Medicine.

[21]  J. Popay,et al.  Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field , 2005, Journal of health services research & policy.

[22]  M. Taljaard,et al.  Interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in patient care (Review) , 2015 .

[23]  Didier Pittet,et al.  Hospital organisation, management, and structure for prevention of health-care-associated infection: a systematic review and expert consensus. , 2015, The Lancet. Infectious diseases.

[24]  N. Sevdalis,et al.  Optimisation of infection prevention and control in acute health care by use of behaviour change: a systematic review. , 2012, The Lancet. Infectious diseases.

[25]  David R. Jones,et al.  Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods , 2005 .

[26]  T. Cook,et al.  Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings , 1979 .

[27]  D. Cohen,et al.  Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care: Controversies and Recommendations , 2008, The Annals of Family Medicine.

[28]  Peter J Pronovost,et al.  Explaining Michigan: developing an ex post theory of a quality improvement program. , 2011, The Milbank quarterly.

[29]  N. Sevdalis,et al.  Optimising infection prevention and control practice using behavior change: a systematic review , 2011, BMC Proceedings.

[30]  A. Harris,et al.  A systematic review of quasi-experimental study designs in the fields of infection control and antibiotic resistance. , 2005, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[31]  S. Pocock,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies , 2007, The Lancet.

[32]  K. Shojania,et al.  Evidence-based quality improvement: the state of the science. , 2005, Health affairs.