A methodological systematic review of what’s wrong with meta-ethnography reportingReportar como inadecuado

A methodological systematic review of what’s wrong with meta-ethnography reporting - Descarga este documento en PDF. Documentación en PDF para descargar gratis. Disponible también para leer online.

BMC Medical Research Methodology

, 14:119

Data collection, quality, and reporting


BackgroundSyntheses of qualitative studies can inform health policy, services and our understanding of patient experience. Meta-ethnography is a systematic seven-phase interpretive qualitative synthesis approach well-suited to producing new theories and conceptual models. However, there are concerns about the quality of meta-ethnography reporting, particularly the analysis and synthesis processes. Our aim was to investigate the application and reporting of methods in recent meta-ethnography journal papers, focusing on the analysis and synthesis process and output.

MethodsMethodological systematic review of health-related meta-ethnography journal papers published from 2012–2013. We searched six electronic databases, Google Scholar and Zetoc for papers using key terms including ‘meta-ethnography.’ Two authors independently screened papers by title and abstract with 100% agreement. We identified 32 relevant papers. Three authors independently extracted data and all authors analysed the application and reporting of methods using content analysis.

ResultsMeta-ethnography was applied in diverse ways, sometimes inappropriately. In 13% of papers the approach did not suit the research aim. In 66% of papers reviewers did not follow the principles of meta-ethnography. The analytical and synthesis processes were poorly reported overall. In only 31% of papers reviewers clearly described how they analysed conceptual data from primary studies phase 5, ‘translation’ of studies and in only one paper 3% reviewers explicitly described how they conducted the analytic synthesis process phase 6. In 38% of papers we could not ascertain if reviewers had achieved any new interpretation of primary studies. In over 30% of papers seminal methodological texts which could have informed methods were not cited.

ConclusionsWe believe this is the first in-depth methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct and reporting. Meta-ethnography is an evolving approach. Current reporting of methods, analysis and synthesis lacks clarity and comprehensiveness. This is a major barrier to use of meta-ethnography findings that could contribute significantly to the evidence base because it makes judging their rigour and credibility difficult. To realise the high potential value of meta-ethnography for enhancing health care and understanding patient experience requires reporting that clearly conveys the methodology, analysis and findings. Tailored meta-ethnography reporting guidelines, developed through expert consensus, could improve reporting.

KeywordsMeta-ethnography Systematic review Qualitative health research Reporting Qualitative synthesis Health Evidence-based practice AbbreviationsCASPThe Critical Appraisal Skills Programme

CONSORTConsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials

ENTREQEnhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research

EPPI-centreEvidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre HTA - health technology assessment

JBIJoanna Briggs Institute

JBIQARIJoanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument

MESHMedical subject headings

NIHRNational Institute for Health Research

PRISMAPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

QAQuality appraisal

QESQualitative evidence synthesis

UKUnited Kingdom.

Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article doi:10.1186-1471-2288-14-119 contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Download fulltext PDF

Autor: Emma F France - Nicola Ring - Rebecca Thomas - Jane Noyes - Margaret Maxwell - Ruth Jepson

Fuente: https://link.springer.com/

Documentos relacionados