Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 97, Issue , 2018, Pages 49-58

  Noyes, Jane ^a   Booth, Andrew ^b   Flemming, Kate ^c   Garside, Ruth ^d   Harden, Angela ^e   Lewin, Simon ^f   Pantoja, Tomas ^g   Hannes, Karin ^h   Cargo, Margaret ⁱ   Thomas, James ^j  

^a BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EXETER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF EAST LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^f SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL   (South Africa)

^g PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

^h UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^j UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

Cochrane; GRADE CERQual; Methodological limitations; Qualitative evidence synthesis; Qualitative research; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; COCHRANE LIBRARY; DATA EXTRACTION; DATA SYNTHESIS; HUMAN; LOGIC; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; STUDY DESIGN; DATA ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; MEDICAL RESEARCH;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATA ACCURACY; DATA ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85040356685     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.020     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Harris, J.L., Booth, A., Cargo, M., Hannes, K., Harden, A., Flemming, K., et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol 97 (2018), 39–48.
2. Harden, A., Thomas, J., Cargo, M., Harris, J., Pantoja, T., Flemming, K., Booth, A., et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 97 (2018), 70–78.
3. Flemming, K., Booth, A., Hannes, K., Cargo, M., Noyes, J., Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 6: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation evidence syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol 97 (2018), 79–85.
4. Cargo, M., Harris, J., Pantoja, T., Booth, A., Harden, A., Hannes, K., Thomas, J., et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 4: methods for assessing evidence on intervention implementation. J Clin Epidemiol 97 (2018), 59–69.
5. Sparks, A.C., Myth 94: qualitative health researchers agree about validity. Qual Health Res 11 (2001), 538–552.
6. Garside, R., Should we appraise the quality of qualitative research reports for systematic reviews, and if so, how?. Innovat Eur J Soc Sci Res 27 (2014), 67–79.
7. Sandelowski, M., A matter of taste: evaluating the quality of qualitative research. Nurs Inq 22:2 (2015), 86–94.
8. Carroll, C., Booth, A., Quality assessment of qualitative evidence for systematic review and synthesis: is it meaningful, and if so, how should it be performed?. Res Syn Methods 6 (2015), 149–154.
9. Santiago-Delefosse, M., Gavin, A., Bruchez, C., Roux, P., Stephen, S.L., Quality of qualitative research in the health sciences: analysis of the common criteria present in 58 assessment guidelines by expert users. Soc Sci Med 148 (2016), 142–151.
10. CASP – Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. (2013 version) Making sense of evidence: 10 questions to help you make sense of qualitative research. Public Health Resource Unit, England. Available at http://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_29c5b002d99342f788c6ac670e49f274.pdf. (Accessed 4 April 2016)
11. Hannes, K., Lockwood, C., Pragmatism as the philosophical underpinning of the Joanna Briggs meta-aggregative approach to qualitative evidence synthesis. J Adv Nurs 67 (2011), 1632–1642.
12. Saini, M., Shlonsky, A., Systematic synthesis of qualitative research. 2012, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 133–135.
13. Barone, T., Eisner, E., Arts based research. 2012, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
14. Heyvaert, M., Hannes, K., Maes, B., Onghena, P., Critical appraisal of mixed methods studies. J Mix Methods Res 7 (2013), 302–327.
15. Pluye, P., Gagnon, M.P., Griffiths, F., Johnson-Lafleur, J., A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in mixed studies reviews. Int J Nurs Stud 46:4 (2009), 529–546.
16. Thomas, J., Harden, A., Oakley, A., Oliver, S., Sutcliffe, K., Rees, R., et al. Integrating Qualitative Research with trials in systematic reviews: an example review from public health shows how integration is possible and some potential benefits. BMJ 328 (2004), 1010–1012.
17. Lewin, S., Glenton, C., Munthe-Kaas, H., 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, 12, 2015, e1001895.
18. Glenton, C., Colvin, C.J., Carlsen, B., Swartz, A., Lewin, S., Noyes, J., et al. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of lay health worker programmes to improve access to maternal and child health: qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2013, CD010414.
19. Lewin, S., Munabi-Babigumira, S., Glenton, C., Daniels, K., Bosch-Capblanch, X., van Wyk, B.E., et al. Lay health workers in primary and community health care for maternal and child health and the management of infectious diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2010, CD004015.
20. WHO, Optimizing health worker roles for maternal and neonatal health. Available at www.optimizemnh.org. (Accessed 16 March 2016)
21. Benoot, C., Hannes, K., Bilsen, J., The use of purposeful sampling in a QES: a worked example on sexual adjustment to a cancer trajectory. BMC Med Res Methodol 16 (2016), 1–12.
22. Flemming, K., Booth, A., Garside, R., Tunçalp, O., Noyes, J., Qualitative evidence synthesis for complex interventions and guideline development: clarification of the purpose, designs and relevant methods. BMJ Global Health, 2018 In press.
23. Thomas, J., Harden, A., Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 8, 2008, 1.
24. Carroll, C., Booth, A., Cooper, K., A worked example of “best fit” framework synthesis: a systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents. BMC Med Res Methodol, 11, 2010, 29.
25. Carroll, C., Booth, A., Leaviss, J., Rick, J., “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method. BMC Med Res Methodol, 13, 2013, 1.
26. Campbell, R., et al. Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technol Assess 15 (2011), 1–164.
27. Whitaker, R., Hendry, M., Booth, A., Carter, B., Charles, J., Craine, N., et al. Intervention Now To Eliminate Repeat Unintended Pregnancy in Teenagers (INTERUPT): a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, qualitative and realist synthesis of implementation factors and user engagement. BMJ Open, 4(4), 2014, e004733.
28. Barnett-Page, E., Thomas, J., Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 9, 2009, 1.
29. Booth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Gerhardus, A., Wahlster, P., van der Wilt, G.J., et al. Guidance on choosing QES methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. [Online]. Available at http://www.integrate-hta.eu/downloads/, 2016 Accessed December 1, 2017.
30. Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Pettticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. Available at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/projects/nssr/, 2007 Accessed December 1, 2017.
31. Schutz, A., Collected papers, Vol. 1, 1962, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.
32. NICE. Methods for development of NICE public health guidance. 2006, NICE, UK Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/phmethods. (Accessed 18 March 2016)
33. Noyes, J., Hendry, M., Booth, A., Chandler, J., Lewin, S., Glenton, C., et al. Current use was established and Cochrane guidance on selection of social theories for systematic reviews of complex interventions was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 75 (2016), 78–92.
34. SURE Framework. The SURE (Supporting the Use of Research Evidence) Collaboration. SURE guides for preparing and using evidence-based policy briefs: 5. Identifying and addressing barriers to implementing the policy options. Version 2.1. Updated November 2011, 2011, The SURE Collaboration; 2011 Available at http://global.evipnet.org/SURE-Guides/. (Accessed 13 March 2016)
35. Tugwell, P., Petticrew, M., Kristjansson, E., Welch, V., Ueffing, E., Waters, E., et al. Assessing equity in systematic reviews: realising the recommendations of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. BMJ, 341, 2010, c4739.
36. Anderson, L.M., Petticrew, M., Rehfuess, E., Armstrong, R., Ueffing, E., Baker, P., et al. Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods 2 (2011), 33–42.
37. Kneale, D., Thomas, J., Harris, K., Developing and optimising the use of logic models in systematic reviews: exploring practice and good practice in the use of programme theory in reviews. PLoS One, 10(11), 2015, e0142187.
38. Turley, R., Saith, R., Bhan, N., Doyle, J., Jones, K., Waters, E., Slum upgrading review: methodological challenges that arise in systematic reviews of complex interventions. J Public Health (Oxf) 35 (2013), 171–175.
39. Pawson, R., Tilley, N., Realistic evaluation. 1997, Sage, London.
40. Garside, R., Britten, N., Stein, K., The experience of heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies. J Adv Nurs 63 (2008), 550–562.
41. Malpass, A., Shaw, A., Sharp, D., Walter, F., Feder, G., Ridd, M., et al. “Medication career” or “moral career”? The two sides of managing antidepressants: a meta-ethnography of patients' experience of antidepressants. Soc Sci Med 68 (2009), 154–168.