Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: A structured methodological review

被引:331
作者
Booth A. [1 ]
机构
[1] University of Sheffield, Reader in Evidence Based Information Practice, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield
基金
美国医疗保健研究与质量局;
关键词
Literature searching; Qualitative research; Systematic reviews;
D O I
10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Qualitative systematic reviews or qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are increasingly recognised as a way to enhance the value of systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical trials. They can explain the mechanisms by which interventions, evaluated within trials, might achieve their effect. They can investigate differences in effects between different population groups. They can identify which outcomes are most important to patients, carers, health professionals and other stakeholders. QES can explore the impact of acceptance, feasibility, meaningfulness and implementation-related factors within a real world setting and thus contribute to the design and further refinement of future interventions. To produce valid, reliable and meaningful QES requires systematic identification of relevant qualitative evidence. Although the methodologies of QES, including methods for information retrieval, are well-documented, little empirical evidence exists to inform their conduct and reporting. Methods: This structured methodological overview examines papers on searching for qualitative research identified from the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Methodology Register and from citation searches of 15 key papers. Results: A single reviewer reviewed 1299 references. Papers reporting methodological guidance, use of innovative methodologies or empirical studies of retrieval methods were categorised under eight topical headings: overviews and methodological guidance, sampling, sources, structured questions, search procedures, search strategies and filters, supplementary strategies and standards. Conclusions: This structured overview presents a contemporaneous view of information retrieval for qualitative research and identifies a future research agenda. This review concludes that poor empirical evidence underpins current information practice in information retrieval of qualitative research. A trend towards improved transparency of search methods and further evaluation of key search procedures offers the prospect of rapid development of search methods. © 2016 Booth.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 142 条
[1]  
Noyes J., Never mind the qualitative feel the depth! The evolving role of qualitative research in Cochrane intervention reviews, J Res Nurs, 15, (2010)
[2]  
Petticrew M., Time to rethink the systematic review catechism? Moving from 'what works' to 'what happens, Syst Rev, 4, (2015)
[3]  
Hannes K., Booth A., Harris J., Noyes J., Celebrating methodological challenges and changes: reflecting on the emergence and importance of the role of qualitative evidence in Cochrane reviews, Syst Rev, 2, (2013)
[4]  
Noblit G.W., Hare R.D., Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies, (1988)
[5]  
Gulmezoglu A.M., Chandler J., Shepperd S., Pantoja T., Reviews of qualitative evidence: a new milestone for Cochrane, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 11, (2013)
[6]  
Noyes J., Popay J., Pearson A., Hannes K., Booth A.
[7]  
Booth A., Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions
[8]  
(2009)
[9]  
Booth A., Carroll C., Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable?, Health Info Libr J, 32, 3, pp. 220-235, (2015)
[10]  
Barroso J., Gollop C., Sandelowski M., Meynell J., Pearce P., Collins L., The challenge of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies, West J Nurs Res, 25, pp. 153-178, (2003)