Myfanwy Lloyd Jones1. 1. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, South Yorkshire, UK. m.lloydjones@sheffield.ac.uk
Abstract
AIM: This paper explores practical methodological issues which arise from the application of systematic review and meta-synthesis techniques to qualitative research studies in the context of a pragmatic health services research question. BACKGROUND: The emphasis on, and volume of, qualitative research is increasing. As a result, there is a need to integrate and disseminate qualitative research findings. However, relatively little has been written about the methodology of systematically reviewing and meta-synthesizing qualitative research studies, and about the practical issues which arise in the course of these processes. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-synthesis was undertaken of qualitative research studies reporting data relevant to the pragmatic health services research question: "What factors facilitate or impede role development and/or effective practice as a clinical nurse specialist, nurse practitioner, advanced nurse practitioner or consultant nurse based in acute hospital settings?" FINDINGS: The identification of relevant studies is substantially more time-consuming than the identification of relevant studies for a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. A substantially larger proportion of papers has to be retrieved for full reading. Articles with unclear titles which lack abstracts cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. Study appraisal and data analysis, being iterative processes, are also more time-consuming than the appraisal and meta-analysis of quantitative studies. It may be possible to reduce the frustrations inherent in the distance between the reviewer and the participants in the primary research by using full project reports rather than published articles. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research studies is a rewarding but demanding activity, and adequate time and resources must be made available. Some recommendations are made which may facilitate those processes.
AIM: This paper explores practical methodological issues which arise from the application of systematic review and meta-synthesis techniques to qualitative research studies in the context of a pragmatic health services research question. BACKGROUND: The emphasis on, and volume of, qualitative research is increasing. As a result, there is a need to integrate and disseminate qualitative research findings. However, relatively little has been written about the methodology of systematically reviewing and meta-synthesizing qualitative research studies, and about the practical issues which arise in the course of these processes. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-synthesis was undertaken of qualitative research studies reporting data relevant to the pragmatic health services research question: "What factors facilitate or impede role development and/or effective practice as a clinical nurse specialist, nurse practitioner, advanced nurse practitioner or consultant nurse based in acute hospital settings?" FINDINGS: The identification of relevant studies is substantially more time-consuming than the identification of relevant studies for a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. A substantially larger proportion of papers has to be retrieved for full reading. Articles with unclear titles which lack abstracts cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. Study appraisal and data analysis, being iterative processes, are also more time-consuming than the appraisal and meta-analysis of quantitative studies. It may be possible to reduce the frustrations inherent in the distance between the reviewer and the participants in the primary research by using full project reports rather than published articles. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research studies is a rewarding but demanding activity, and adequate time and resources must be made available. Some recommendations are made which may facilitate those processes.
Authors: Lynn A Garvin; Marianne Pugatch; Deborah Gurewich; Jacquelyn N Pendergast; Christopher J Miller Journal: Med Care Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 3.178
Authors: Salla Atkins; Simon Lewin; Helen Smith; Mark Engel; Atle Fretheim; Jimmy Volmink Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2008-04-16 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Elizabeth A McGuier; David J Kolko; Mary Lou Klem; Jamie Feldman; Grace Kinkler; Matthew A Diabes; Laurie R Weingart; Courtney Benjamin Wolk Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2021-06-26