Understanding global health policy engagements with qualitative research: Qualitative evidence syntheses and the OptimizeMNH guidelines

Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence—or ‘qualitative evidence syntheses’ (QES)—have recently become an important form of knowledge production within the broader projects of ‘evidence-based medicine’ (EBM) and ‘evidence-informed policymaking’ in global health. Proponents of QES argue that these reviews offer a way to promote ‘health systems thinking’ and build a better understanding of local process and context in global health policy- and decision-making. EBM's detailed technical procedures for evidence synthesis, however, do not necessarily fit well with conventional qualitative research paradigms and there are concerns that subjecting qualitative research to EBM's logics and practices might fatally compromise both its epistemological integrity and political impact. This article addresses these concerns via a reflective case study of the use of qualitative evidence in the World Health Organization's (WHO) OptimizeMNH guidelines for task shifting in maternal and newborn health programs. When I first joined the team developing the evidence base for these health systems-oriented guidelines, I wondered whether the inclusion of qualitative research would result in a broadening of the forms of reason, experience and judgment that informed global health policy, or instead, be another disheartening example of how modern bureaucratic systems coopt, standardize, and complexity-reduce the alternative logics they encounter. While the integration of qualitative evidence did come at some cost to the depth and critical insights of the evidence we were reviewing, there were also important ways in which the technical procedures of evidence-based medicine were open to adaptation and transformation. The formal inclusion of qualitative evidence syntheses in these global guidelines did not represent—or produce—a dramatic about-turn in global health policy's hegemonic discourses and practices. It did reveal, however, that powerful systems of health governance like the WHO and evidence-based medicine are not inevitably closed, but in fact open to change, in often unpredictable ways.