Tove Faber Frandsen1, Frederik Alkier Gildberg2, Ellen Boldrup Tingleff3. 1. Department of Design and Communication, Kolding, University of Southern Denmark. Electronic address: t.faber@sdu.dk. 2. Department of Psychiatry Middelfart, Research & Development Unit, Middelfart, Region of Southern Denmark; Department of Regional Health Research, Center for Psychiatric Nursing and Health Research, Odense, University of Southern Denmark. 3. Department of Psychiatry Middelfart, Research & Development Unit, Middelfart, Region of Southern Denmark; Department of Regional Health Research, Center for Psychiatric Nursing and Health Research, Odense, University of Southern Denmark; Department of Clinical Research, OPEN, Odense Patient data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, Odense, University of Southern Denmark; The Department of Nursing, Vejle and Health Sciences Research Center, Odense, UCL University College.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Retrieving the qualitative literature can be challenging, but the number and specific choice of databases are key factors. The aim of the present study is to provide guidance for the choice of databases for retrieving qualitative health research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Seventy-one qualitative systematic reviews, from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and JBI database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, including 927 qualitative studies, were used to analyze the coverage of the qualitative literature in nine bibliographic databases. RESULTS: The results show that 94.4% of the qualitative studies are indexed in at least one database, with a lower coverage for publication types other than journal articles. Maximum recall with two databases is 89.1%, with three databases recall increases to 92% and maximum recall with four databases is 93.1%. The remaining 6.9% of the publications consists of 1.3% scattered across five databases and 5.6% that are not indexed in any of the nine databases used in this study. CONCLUSION: Retrieval in one or a few-although well selected-databases does not provide all the relevant qualitative studies. The remaining studies needs to be located using several other databases and alternative search strategies.
OBJECTIVE: Retrieving the qualitative literature can be challenging, but the number and specific choice of databases are key factors. The aim of the present study is to provide guidance for the choice of databases for retrieving qualitative health research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Seventy-one qualitative systematic reviews, from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and JBI database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, including 927 qualitative studies, were used to analyze the coverage of the qualitative literature in nine bibliographic databases. RESULTS: The results show that 94.4% of the qualitative studies are indexed in at least one database, with a lower coverage for publication types other than journal articles. Maximum recall with two databases is 89.1%, with three databases recall increases to 92% and maximum recall with four databases is 93.1%. The remaining 6.9% of the publications consists of 1.3% scattered across five databases and 5.6% that are not indexed in any of the nine databases used in this study. CONCLUSION: Retrieval in one or a few-although well selected-databases does not provide all the relevant qualitative studies. The remaining studies needs to be located using several other databases and alternative search strategies.