Andrea L Nevedal1, Liat Ayalon2, Sherylyn H Briller3. 1. Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California. 2. Louis and Gabi Weisfeld School of Social Work, Faculty of Social Sciences, Bar-ILan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel. 3. Department of Anthropology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Gerontologists have long been interested in longitudinal qualitative research (LQR), yet ambiguity remains about best practices. The purpose of this review was to conduct a qualitative evidence synthesis to identify strengths and limitations in existing gerontological LQR. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We searched for studies published in English before September 2017, using longitudinal qualitative methods and focusing on gerontology. We searched the following databases: PubMed and ProQuest. This was followed up by a snowball search to identify additional LQR articles that were not gerontologically focused but provided conceptual or methodological information to enhance gerontological LQR. Article titles and abstracts were reviewed, and selected articles were independently evaluated by all authors and summarized in a descriptive matrix based on design, analysis, and strengths and limitations. RESULTS: Our literature search resulted in 225 articles, which was then narrowed to 71 articles from 47 different journals based on our inclusion/exclusion criteria. LQR in gerontology varies considerably by study design and analysis approach. LQR design considerations involve number of time points and duration; rapport and retention; and consistent or different sampling, data collection, and measures. LQR analysis considerations involve synchronic and diachronic approaches, consistent or evolving coding, and individual- or group-level analysis. Gerontological LQR articles vary in the extent to which they address special aging considerations. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This review indicates that there are areas where gerontological LQR can be strengthened going forward. We provide researchers with strategies to improve LQR rigor in our field and beyond. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America 2018.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Gerontologists have long been interested in longitudinal qualitative research (LQR), yet ambiguity remains about best practices. The purpose of this review was to conduct a qualitative evidence synthesis to identify strengths and limitations in existing gerontological LQR. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We searched for studies published in English before September 2017, using longitudinal qualitative methods and focusing on gerontology. We searched the following databases: PubMed and ProQuest. This was followed up by a snowball search to identify additional LQR articles that were not gerontologically focused but provided conceptual or methodological information to enhance gerontological LQR. Article titles and abstracts were reviewed, and selected articles were independently evaluated by all authors and summarized in a descriptive matrix based on design, analysis, and strengths and limitations. RESULTS: Our literature search resulted in 225 articles, which was then narrowed to 71 articles from 47 different journals based on our inclusion/exclusion criteria. LQR in gerontology varies considerably by study design and analysis approach. LQR design considerations involve number of time points and duration; rapport and retention; and consistent or different sampling, data collection, and measures. LQR analysis considerations involve synchronic and diachronic approaches, consistent or evolving coding, and individual- or group-level analysis. Gerontological LQR articles vary in the extent to which they address special aging considerations. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This review indicates that there are areas where gerontological LQR can be strengthened going forward. We provide researchers with strategies to improve LQR rigor in our field and beyond. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America 2018.
Entities:
Keywords:
Life course; Literature review; Longitudinal methods; Qualitative methods
Authors: S T M Peek; K G Luijkx; H J M Vrijhoef; M E Nieboer; S Aarts; C S van der Voort; M D Rijnaard; E J M Wouters Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Jennifer Freytag; Jinna Chu; Sylvia J Hysong; Richard L Street; Christine M Markham; Thomas P Giordano; Robert A Westbrook; Sarah Njue-Marendes; Syundai R Johnson; Bich N Dang Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Andrea L Nevedal; Caitlin M Reardon; Marilla A Opra Widerquist; George L Jackson; Sarah L Cutrona; Brandolyn S White; Laura J Damschroder Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 7.327