Jane Dalton1, Andrew Booth2, Jane Noyes3, Amanda J Sowden4. 1. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK. Electronic address: jane.dalton@york.ac.uk. 2. School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK. 3. School of Social Sciences, University of Bangor, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2DG, UK. 4. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Systematic reviews of quantitative evidence are well established in health and social care. Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence are increasingly available, but volume, topics covered, methods used, and reporting quality are largely unknown. We provide a descriptive overview of systematic reviews of qualitative evidence assessing health and social care interventions included on the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched DARE for reviews published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014. We extracted data on review content and methods, summarized narratively, and explored patterns over time. RESULTS: We identified 145 systematic reviews conducted worldwide (64 in the UK). Interventions varied but largely covered treatment or service delivery in community and hospital settings. There were no discernible patterns over time. Critical appraisal of primary studies was conducted routinely. Most reviews were poorly reported. CONCLUSION: Potential exists to use systematic reviews of qualitative evidence when driving forward user-centered health and social care. We identify where more research is needed and propose ways to improve review methodology and reporting.
OBJECTIVES: Systematic reviews of quantitative evidence are well established in health and social care. Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence are increasingly available, but volume, topics covered, methods used, and reporting quality are largely unknown. We provide a descriptive overview of systematic reviews of qualitative evidence assessing health and social care interventions included on the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched DARE for reviews published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014. We extracted data on review content and methods, summarized narratively, and explored patterns over time. RESULTS: We identified 145 systematic reviews conducted worldwide (64 in the UK). Interventions varied but largely covered treatment or service delivery in community and hospital settings. There were no discernible patterns over time. Critical appraisal of primary studies was conducted routinely. Most reviews were poorly reported. CONCLUSION: Potential exists to use systematic reviews of qualitative evidence when driving forward user-centered health and social care. We identify where more research is needed and propose ways to improve review methodology and reporting.
Authors: Hua Li; Alana Glecia; Kayla Arisman; Cindy Peternelj-Taylor; Lorraine Holtslander; Donald Leidl Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2021-06-01
Authors: Emma F France; Isabelle Uny; Nicola Ring; Ruth L Turley; Margaret Maxwell; Edward A S Duncan; Ruth G Jepson; Rachel J Roberts; Jane Noyes Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2019-02-18 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Heather Menzies Munthe-Kaas; Claire Glenton; Andrew Booth; Jane Noyes; Simon Lewin Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Caitlin Rajala; Camden Waterhouse; Emily Evans; Kimberly S Erler; Michael J Bergin; Sarah M Bannon; Mary D Slavin; Lewis E Kazis Journal: Front Rehabil Sci Date: 2022-07-22