Literature DB >> 26061890

Multi-context versus context-specific qualitative evidence syntheses: combining the best of both.

Karin Hannes1, Angela Harden2.   

Abstract

There is an increasing interest in the conduct of qualitative evidence syntheses (QES), particularly in the field of health care. Approaches to QES vary in the way they conduct a search, a critical appraisal or the data-analysis. To date, the use of multi-context versus context-specific QES has not yet been fully considered. In a multi-context, QES exhaustive searches are used that retrieve studies from a broad variety of geographical, socio-cultural, political, historical, economical, health care, linguistic, or other context relevant to the review. Authors of a context-specific QES would generally have a particular end user in mind, therefore, using a selective search strategy with a focus on one particular context in order to provide lines of actions or theories that are sensitive to a local setting. We used the insights from a recently conducted, context-specific QES to map out potential strengths and weaknesses of these two approaches and make recommendations regarding the future conduct of QES. We propose two ways of combining the best of both: the production of umbrella reviews of context-specific syntheses and/or the trans-cultural modification and trans-contextual adaptation of findings from multi-context syntheses.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords:  qualitative evidence synthesis; systematic reviews

Year:  2012        PMID: 26061890     DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.55

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Res Synth Methods        ISSN: 1759-2879            Impact factor:   5.273


  6 in total

1.  Characterising the evidence base for advanced clinical practice in the UK: a scoping review protocol.

Authors:  Catrin Evans; Brenda Poku; Ruth Pearce; Jeanette Eldridge; Paul Hendrick; Roger Knaggs; John McLuskey; Philippa Tomczak; Ruaridh Thow; Peter Harris; Joy Conway; Richard Collier
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 2.692

2.  Seeking culturally safe care: a qualitative systematic review of the healthcare experiences of women and girls who have undergone female genital mutilation/cutting.

Authors:  Catrin Evans; Ritah Tweheyo; Julie McGarry; Jeanette Eldridge; Juliet Albert; Valentine Nkoyo; Gina Marie Awoko Higginbottom
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Qualitative research on end-of-life communication with family carers in nursing homes: A discussion of methodological issues and challenges.

Authors:  Silvia Gonella; Paola Di Giulio; Alvisa Palese; Valerio Dimonte; Sara Campagna
Journal:  Nurs Open       Date:  2020-09-19

4.  Effect of stigma reduction intervention strategies on HIV test uptake in low- and middle-income countries: a realist review protocol.

Authors:  Subash Thapa; Karin Hannes; Margaret Cargo; Anne Buve; Catharina Mathei
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2015-11-02

5.  Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data.

Authors:  Jane Noyes; Andrew Booth; Simon Lewin; Benedicte Carlsen; Claire Glenton; Christopher J Colvin; Ruth Garside; Meghan A Bohren; Arash Rashidian; Megan Wainwright; Özge Tunςalp; Jacqueline Chandler; Signe Flottorp; Tomas Pantoja; Joseph D Tucker; Heather Munthe-Kaas
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2018-01-25       Impact factor: 7.327

6.  What are the experiences of seeking, receiving and providing FGM-related healthcare? Perspectives of health professionals and women/girls who have undergone FGM: protocol for a systematic review of qualitative evidence.

Authors:  Catrin Evans; Ritah Tweheyo; Julie McGarry; Jeanette Eldridge; Carol McCormick; Valentine Nkoyo; Gina Marie Awoko Higginbottom
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.