Why, when and how to update a meta-ethnography qualitative synthesis

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  France, Emma F ^a   Wells, Mary ^a   Lang, Heidi ^a   Williams, Brian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cancer; Meta ethnography; Meta synthesis; Qualitative analysis; Qualitative reviews; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; DECISION MAKING; ETHNOGRAPHY; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MULTIMODALITY CANCER THERAPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH CAMPAIGN; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; LITERATURE; PROCEDURES; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

ANTHROPOLOGY, CULTURAL; HUMANS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 85007408827     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0218-4     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Wells M, Williams B, Firnigl D, Lang H, Coyle J, Kroll T, et al. Supporting 'work-related goals' rather than 'return to work' after cancer? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of 25 qualitative studies. Psychooncology. 2012; 22(6):1208-19. Article first published online: 10 AUG 2012.
2. Hannes K, Lockwood C. Synthesizing qualitative research: choosing the right approach. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
3. Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, Inc; 1988.
4. Paterson BL. 'It looks great but how do I know if it fits?': an introduction to meta-synthesis research. In: Hannes K, Lockwood C, editors. Synthesising Qualitative Research: Choosing the Right Approach. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2012. Chapter 1.
5. Hannes K, Macaitis K. A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis: update on a review of published papers. Qual Res. 2012;12(4):402-42.
6. Hannes K. Chapter 4: Critical appraisal of qualitative research. In: Noyes J, Booth A, Hannes K, Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group, et al., editors. Supplementary guidance for inclusion of qualitative research in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions. Version 1 (updated August 2011)th ed. 2011.
7. Dixon-Woods M, Booth A, Sutton AJ. Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports. Qual Res. 2007;7(3):375-422.
8. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):28.
9. Turner SP. Sociological explanation as translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1980.
10. Paterson BL, Connie C. Meta-study of qualitative health research: a practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2001.
11. Thorne S, Paterson B. Shifting images of chronic illness. J Nurs Sch. 1998; 30(2):173-8.
12. Levack WMM. The role of qualitative metasynthesis in evidence-based physical therapy. Physical Therapy Reviews. 2012;17(6):390-7. 8.
13. Campbell R, Pound P, Morgan M, Daker-White G, Britten N, Pill R, Yardley L, Pope C, Donovan J. Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(43).
14. Ring N, Jepson R, Pinnock H, Wilson C, Hoskins G, Wyke S, et al. Developing novel evidence-based interventions to promote asthma action plan use: a cross-study synthesis of evidence from randomised controlled trials and qualitative studies. Trials. 2012;13(1):216.
15. Gülmezoglu AM, Chandler J, Shepperd S, Pantoja T. Reviews of qualitative evidence: a new milestone for Cochrane [editorial]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;11: ED000073-ED000073.
16. Nunes V, Neilson J, O'Flynn N, Calvert N, Kuntze S, Smithson H, Benson J, Blair J, Bowser A, Clyne W, Crome P, Haddad P, Hemingway S, Horne R, Johnson S, Kelly S, Packham B, Patel M, Steel J. Clinical guidelines and evidence review for medicines adherence: involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines and supporting adherence. London: National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care and Royal College of General Practitioners, 364. 2009.
17. McCann S, Campbell M, Entwistle V. Recruitment to clinical trials: a metaethnographic synthesis of studies of reasons for participation. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(4):233-41.
18. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed on 07/03/16.
19. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. University of York, UK: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2008.
20. Moher D, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Sampson M, Barrowman N. When and how to update systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;1.
21. Daker-White G, Donovan J, Campbell R. Redefined by illness: metaethnography of qualitative studies on the experience of rheumatoid arthritis. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;36(13):1061-71.
22. Finfgeld-Connett D, Johnson ED. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(1):194-204.
23. National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care (UK). Medicines adherence: involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines and supporting adherence. Hyde Park, London: The Royal College of General Practitioners; 2009.
24. McInnes RJ, Chambers JA. Supporting breastfeeding mothers: qualitative synthesis. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(4):407-27.
25. Noyes J, Popay J. Directly observed therapy and tuberculosis: how can a systematic review of qualitative research contribute to improving services? A qualitative meta-synthesis. J Adv Nurs. 2007;57(3):227-43.
26. Toye F, Seers K, Allcock N, Briggs M, Carr E, Barker K. Meta-ethnography 25 years on: challenges and insights for synthesising a large number of qualitative studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):80.
27. Lang H, France E, Williams B, Humphris G, Wells M. The psychological experience of living with head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-synthesis. Psychooncology. 2013;22(12):2648-63.
28. France E, Ring N, Noyes J, Maxwell M, Duncan E, Jepson R, et al. Developing meta-ethnography reporting guidelines and standards for research (eMERGE). Protocol version 2. 2015. Available from: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hsdr/1311460 Accessed on 07/03/16.
29. Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Carlsen B, Colvin CJ, Gülmezoglu M, et al. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Med. 2015;12(10): e1001895.
30. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Effective evaluation: improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1981.
31. France EF, Ring N, Thomas R, Noyes J, Maxwell M, Jepson R. What's wrong with meta-ethnography reporting? A systematic review of published studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:119.
32. Carroll C, Booth A, Lloyd-Jones M. Should we exclude inadequately reported studies from qualitative systematic reviews? An evaluation of sensitivity analyses in two case study reviews. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(10): 1425-34.
33. Boeije HR, van Wesel F, Alisic E. Making a difference: towards a method for weighing the evidence in a qualitative synthesis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011; 17(4):657-63.