Synthesising quantitative and qualitative research in evidence-based patient information

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Volumn 61, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 262-270

  Goldsmith, Megan R ^a   Bankhead, Clare R ^a   Austoker, Joan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATABASE; METHODOLOGY; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RESEARCH WORK; RISK ASSESSMENT; WOMENS HEALTH;

DATA BASE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; PATIENT INFORMATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ADULT; COLPOSCOPY; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; META-ANALYSIS; MIDDLE AGED; PAMPHLETS; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 34147213591     PISSN: 0143005X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jech.2006.046110     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Austoker J, Davey C, Jansen C. Improving the quality of the written information sent to women about cervical screening: part 1-evidence-based criteria for the content of letters and leaflets; part 2-evaluation of the content of current letters and leaflets. Sheffield, UK: NHS Cervical Screening Programme, Cancer Research Campaign, 1997:No.6.
2. Department of Health. The NHS Cancer Plan: a plan for investment, a plan for reform. London: Department of Health, 2000:1-97.
3. Department of Health. Choosing Health: making healthy choices easier. London: Department of Health, 2004:1-207.
4. Goldsmith MR, Bankhead CR, Austoker J. Improving the quality of the written information sent to women about cervical screening: Evidence-based criteria for the content of letters and leaflets. NHS Cervical Screening Programmes, 2006 (NHSCSP Publication No 26).
5. Egger M, Davey Smith G, O'Rourke K. Rationale, potentials, and promise of systematic reviews. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Sys Rev Health Care:meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001:3-19.
6. Glasziou P, Vandenbroucke JP, Chalmers I. Assessing the quality of research. BMJ 2004;328:39-41.
7. nd edn York: York Publishing Services Ltd, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, 2001:No.4.
8. Egger M, Davey Smith G. Principles of and procedures for systematic reviews. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews in health Care:meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001:23-42.
9. Harden A, Garcia J, Oliver S, et al. Applying systematic review methods to studies of people's views: An example from public health research. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:794-800.
10. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA 1994;272:1367-71.
11. Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, et al. How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual Res 2006;6:27-44.
12. Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Young B, et al. Integrative approaches to qualitative and quantitative evidence. London: Health Development Agency, 2004:1-35.
13. Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005;10:S6-20.
14. Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, et al. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005;10:45-53.
15. Hawker S, Payne S, Kerr C, et al. Appraising the evidence: reviewing disparate data systematically. Qual Health Res 2002;12:1284-99.
16. Eccles M, Freemantle N, Mason J. Using systematic reviews in clinical guideline development. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews in health care:meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001:400-9.
17. Weightman A, Ellis S, Cullum A, et al. Grading evidence and recommendations for public health interventions: Developing and piloting a framework. London: Health Development Agency, 2005:1-19.
18. Dixon-Woods M, Fitzpatrick R, Roberts K. Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: opportunities and problems. J Eval Clin Pract 2001;7:125-33.
19. Petticrew M, Roberts H. Evidence, hierarchies, and typologies: horses for courses. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:527-9.
20. Jackson N, Waters E. Criteria for the systematic review of health promotion and public health interventions. Health Promot Int 2005;20:367-74.
21. Giacomini MK, Cook DJ. Users' guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA 2000;284:357- 62.
22. Popay J, Williams G. Qualitative Research and Evidence-Based Healthcare. J R Soc Med 1998;91:32-7.
23. McInnes L. To synthesise or not synthesis? That is the question! Worldviews Evid Based Nurs, 2005;2:49-51.
24. ESRC Research Methods Programme [homepage on the Internet]. Manchester: Economic and Social Research Council. Available from http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/methods/projects/(accessed on 11 January 2007).
25. Roberts KA, Dixon-Woods M, Fitzpatrick R, et al. Factors affecting uptake of childhood immunisation: a Bayesian synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Lancet 2002;360:1596-9.
26. Thomas J, Harden A, Oakley A, et al. Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews. BMJ 2004;328:1010-2.
27. Victora CG, Habicht J-P, Bryce J. Evidence-based public health: moving beyond randomized trials. Am J Public Health 2004;94:400-5.
28. Byrom J, Dunn PDJ, Hughes GM, et al. Colposcopy information leaflets: what women want to know and when they want to receive this information. J Med Screen 2003;10:143-7.
29. Neale J, Pitts MK, Dunn PD, et al. An observational study of precolposcopy education sessions: what do women want to know? Health Care Women Int 2003;24:468-75.
30. Olamijulo JA, Duncan ID. Patient-based evaluation of a colposcopy information leaflet. J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;17:394-8.
31. Howells RE, Dunn PD, Isasi T, et al. Is the provision of information leaflets before colposcopy beneficial? A prospective randomised study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106:528-34.
32. Shaw RL, Booth A, Sutton AJ, et al. Finding qualitative research: an evaluation of search strategies. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2004;4(5).www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/4/5 (accessed 11 January 2007).
33. Barbour RS, Barbour M. Evaluating and synthesizing qualitative research: the need to develop a distinctive approach. J Eval Clin Pract 2003;9:179-86.
34. Jones ML. Application of systematic review methods to qualitative research: practical issues. J Adv Nurs 2004;48:271-8.
35. Bankhead CR, Brett J, Bukach C, et al. The impact of screening on future health-promoting behaviours and health beliefs: A systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2003;7:1-88.
36. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users' guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA 1993;270:2598-601.
37. Oxman AD, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature. I. How to get started. The evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA 1993;270:2093-95.
38. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Assessing the quality of randomised controlled trials. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic Reviews in Health Care:meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001:87-108.
39. Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, et al. Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med 2003;56:671-84.
40. Walsh D, Downe S. Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. J Adv Nurs 2005;50:204-11.
41. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) and Evidence-based Practice [homepage on the Internet]. Oxford: Public Health Resource Unit, Milton Keynes Primary Care NHS Trust; 2005 (updated Dec 2005; accessed Dec 2005) Critical Appraisal Skills Programme: making sense of evidence - CASP appraisal tools. Available from, http://www.phru.nhs.uk/casp/ critical_appraisal_tools.htm.
42. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network [homepage on the Internet]. Edinburgh: SIGN; 2001-2005 (updated May 2004) SIGN 50: a guideline developers' handbook. Available on, http://www.sign.ac.uk/ guidelines/fulltext/50/index.html (accessed 11 January, 2007).
43. Lethaby A, Wells S, Furness S, et al. Handbook for the preparation of explicit evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, In: Farquhar C, eds. Auckland, New Zealand: New Zealand Guidelines Group, Effective Practice Institute of the University of Auckland, 2001.
44. Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, et al. Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence, 2nd edn. London: Government Chief Social Researcher's Office, 2004.
45. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004;4: 38, www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/4/38 (accessed 11 January 2007).
46. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328:1490.
47. Gath DH, Hallam N, Mynors-Wallis L, et al. Emotional reactions in women attending a UK colposcopy clinic. J Epidemiol Community Health 1995;49:79-83.
48. Kuehner CA. The lived experience of women with abnormal Papanicolaou smears receiving care in a military health care setting [dissertation]. United States Navy Nurse Corp; Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, 2001.
49. Atkins D, Briss PA, Eccles M, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: pilot study of a new system. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005;5: 25, www.biomedcentral.com/1472- 6963/5/25 (accessed 11 January 2007).
50. Dixon-Woods M, Shaw RL, Agarwal S, et al. The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13:223-25.