Abstract
Introduction: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies recognize that the incorporation of technologies into health systems should not be based solely on quantitative data. The incorporation of qualitative data allows for assessment based on findings regarding feasibility, suitability, meaning, people’s values and preferences, acceptability, and equity. Although there are some guidelines that guide the conduction of evidence syntheses from qualitative data, a specific structure or guideline for the recommendation process in the field of HTA is not known or standardized. The objective of this study was to map the structures proposed to synthesize qualitative evidence and assess their quality in HTA processes to support the proposal of a guideline for the field, with the following questions: Which documents address guidelines or structures for synthesizing qualitative evidence in the field of HTA? What methodological processes are proposed to synthesize, grade, and present this evidence for incorporation into HTA reports? Methods: This scoping review followed the JBI methodology. The databases accessed were: Medline, LILACS, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, JBIDatabase, and Science Direct. The gray literature was searched in PROQUEST, Open Grey, CADTH's Gray Matters, Google Scholar, and on the websites of HTA agencies in different countries. The data were presented in tabular format and will include the topics of interest. The concept is the methods to synthesize evidence and assess its quality. The context is the field of HTA worldwide. There is no specific population. There was no restriction on language or year of publication. Results: A total of 1,909 citations were identified. 302 duplicates. 1,607 had titles and abstracts analyzed. 59 for full-text reading. 20 published documents and 9 reports were selected. Most of the documents can be classified as guidelines. 5 HTA agencies submitted a proposal for inclusion. Acceptability, feasibility, equity, and experience were the main justifications for including qualitative data. Frameworks such as “Retrate”, INTAGRATE-HTA, GRADE CerQUAL, CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Program), ENTREQ were cited. It is observed that there is no most frequent method model for synthesizing evidence, but there is a suggestion of adapting the framework according to the question, type of study, target audience, and objective. Discussion and conclusions: Preliminary evidence suggests diversity and little detail in the approaches. The implications of this study are aimed at identifying similarities, differences, and approaches to suggest a guideline that allows for the homogenization of processes, comparison between different contexts, transferability, standardization, or even updating of information. The study is in the phase of presenting results to a panel of experts with the aim of supporting the discussion on the viability of proposing a guideline for the field.
