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

被引:89
作者
France E.F. [1 ]
Wells M. [1 ]
Lang H. [1 ]
Williams B. [1 ]
机构
[1] Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, School of Health Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling
关键词
Cancer; Meta-ethnography; Meta-synthesis; Qualitative analysis; Qualitative reviews; Systematic reviews;
D O I
10.1186/s13643-016-0218-4
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Meta-ethnography is a unique, systematic, qualitative synthesis approach widely used to provide robust evidence on patient and clinician beliefs and experiences and understandings of complex social phenomena. It can make important theoretical and conceptual contributions to health care policy and practice. Results: Since beliefs, experiences, health care contexts and social phenomena change over time, the continued relevance of the findings from meta-ethnographies cannot be assumed. However, there is little guidance on whether, when and how meta-ethnographies should be updated; Cochrane guidance on updating reviews of intervention effectiveness is unlikely to be fully appropriate. This is the first in-depth discussion on updating a meta-ethnography; it explores why, when and how to update a meta-ethnography. Three main methods of updating the analysis and synthesis are examined. Advantages and disadvantages of each method are outlined, relating to the context, purpose, process and output of the update and the nature of the new data available. Recommendations are made for the appropriate use of each method, and a worked example of updating a meta-ethnography is provided. Conclusions: This article makes a unique contribution to this evolving area of meta-ethnography methodology. © 2016 France et al.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 33 条
[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, 22, 6, pp. 1208-1219, (2012)
[2]  
Hannes K., Lockwood C., Synthesizing qualitative research: choosing the right approach, (2011)
[3]  
Noblit G.W., Hare R.D., Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies, (1988)
[4]  
Paterson B.L., It looks great but how do I know if it fits?': an introduction to meta-synthesis research, Synthesising Qualitative Research: Choosing the Right Approach, (2012)
[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, 12, 4, pp. 402-442, (2012)
[6]  
Hannes K., Chapter 4: Critical appraisal of qualitative research, Supplementary guidance for inclusion of qualitative research in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions, (2011)
[7]  
Dixon-Woods M., Booth A., Sutton A.J., Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports, Qual Res, 7, 3, pp. 375-422, (2007)
[8]  
Gough D., Thomas J., Oliver S., Clarifying differences between review designs and methods, Syst Rev, 1, 1, (2012)
[9]  
Turner S.P., Sociological explanation as translation, (1980)
[10]  
Paterson B.L., Connie C., Meta-study of qualitative health research: a practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis, (2001)