Cargando…

Qualitative systematic reviews of treatment burden in stroke, heart failure and diabetes - Methodological challenges and solutions

BACKGROUND: Treatment burden can be defined as the self-care practices that patients with chronic illness must perform to respond to the requirements of their healthcare providers, as well as the impact that these practices have on patient functioning and well being. Increasing levels of treatment b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gallacher, Katie, Jani, Bhautesh, Morrison, Deborah, Macdonald, Sara, Blane, David, Erwin, Patricia, May, Carl R, Montori, Victor M, Eton, David T, Smith, Fiona, Batty, David G, Mair, Frances S
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3568050/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23356353
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-10
_version_ 1782258757946834944
author Gallacher, Katie
Jani, Bhautesh
Morrison, Deborah
Macdonald, Sara
Blane, David
Erwin, Patricia
May, Carl R
Montori, Victor M
Eton, David T
Smith, Fiona
Batty, David G
Mair, Frances S
author_facet Gallacher, Katie
Jani, Bhautesh
Morrison, Deborah
Macdonald, Sara
Blane, David
Erwin, Patricia
May, Carl R
Montori, Victor M
Eton, David T
Smith, Fiona
Batty, David G
Mair, Frances S
author_sort Gallacher, Katie
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Treatment burden can be defined as the self-care practices that patients with chronic illness must perform to respond to the requirements of their healthcare providers, as well as the impact that these practices have on patient functioning and well being. Increasing levels of treatment burden may lead to suboptimal adherence and negative outcomes. Systematic review of the qualitative literature is a useful method for exploring the patient experience of care, in this case the experience of treatment burden. There is no consensus on methods for qualitative systematic review. This paper describes the methodology used for qualitative systematic reviews of the treatment burdens identified in three different common chronic conditions, using stroke as our exemplar. METHODS: Qualitative studies in peer reviewed journals seeking to understand the patient experience of stroke management were sought. Limitations of English language and year of publication 2000 onwards were set. An exhaustive search strategy was employed, consisting of a scoping search, database searches (Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Medline & PsycINFO) and reference, footnote and citation searching. Papers were screened, data extracted, quality appraised and analysed by two individuals, with a third party for disagreements. Data analysis was carried out using a coding framework underpinned by Normalization Process Theory (NPT). RESULTS: A total of 4364 papers were identified, 54 were included in the review. Of these, 51 (94%) were retrieved from our database search. Methodological issues included: creating an appropriate search strategy; investigating a topic not previously conceptualised; sorting through irrelevant data within papers; the quality appraisal of qualitative research; and the use of NPT as a novel method of data analysis, shown to be a useful method for the purposes of this review. CONCLUSION: The creation of our search strategy may be of particular interest to other researchers carrying out synthesis of qualitative studies. Importantly, the successful use of NPT to inform a coding frame for data analysis involving qualitative data that describes processes relating to self management highlights the potential of a new method for analyses of qualitative data within systematic reviews.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3568050
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35680502013-02-12 Qualitative systematic reviews of treatment burden in stroke, heart failure and diabetes - Methodological challenges and solutions Gallacher, Katie Jani, Bhautesh Morrison, Deborah Macdonald, Sara Blane, David Erwin, Patricia May, Carl R Montori, Victor M Eton, David T Smith, Fiona Batty, David G Mair, Frances S BMC Med Res Methodol Correspondence BACKGROUND: Treatment burden can be defined as the self-care practices that patients with chronic illness must perform to respond to the requirements of their healthcare providers, as well as the impact that these practices have on patient functioning and well being. Increasing levels of treatment burden may lead to suboptimal adherence and negative outcomes. Systematic review of the qualitative literature is a useful method for exploring the patient experience of care, in this case the experience of treatment burden. There is no consensus on methods for qualitative systematic review. This paper describes the methodology used for qualitative systematic reviews of the treatment burdens identified in three different common chronic conditions, using stroke as our exemplar. METHODS: Qualitative studies in peer reviewed journals seeking to understand the patient experience of stroke management were sought. Limitations of English language and year of publication 2000 onwards were set. An exhaustive search strategy was employed, consisting of a scoping search, database searches (Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Medline & PsycINFO) and reference, footnote and citation searching. Papers were screened, data extracted, quality appraised and analysed by two individuals, with a third party for disagreements. Data analysis was carried out using a coding framework underpinned by Normalization Process Theory (NPT). RESULTS: A total of 4364 papers were identified, 54 were included in the review. Of these, 51 (94%) were retrieved from our database search. Methodological issues included: creating an appropriate search strategy; investigating a topic not previously conceptualised; sorting through irrelevant data within papers; the quality appraisal of qualitative research; and the use of NPT as a novel method of data analysis, shown to be a useful method for the purposes of this review. CONCLUSION: The creation of our search strategy may be of particular interest to other researchers carrying out synthesis of qualitative studies. Importantly, the successful use of NPT to inform a coding frame for data analysis involving qualitative data that describes processes relating to self management highlights the potential of a new method for analyses of qualitative data within systematic reviews. BioMed Central 2013-01-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3568050/ /pubmed/23356353 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-10 Text en Copyright © 2013 Gallacher et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Correspondence
Gallacher, Katie
Jani, Bhautesh
Morrison, Deborah
Macdonald, Sara
Blane, David
Erwin, Patricia
May, Carl R
Montori, Victor M
Eton, David T
Smith, Fiona
Batty, David G
Mair, Frances S
Qualitative systematic reviews of treatment burden in stroke, heart failure and diabetes - Methodological challenges and solutions
title Qualitative systematic reviews of treatment burden in stroke, heart failure and diabetes - Methodological challenges and solutions
title_full Qualitative systematic reviews of treatment burden in stroke, heart failure and diabetes - Methodological challenges and solutions
title_fullStr Qualitative systematic reviews of treatment burden in stroke, heart failure and diabetes - Methodological challenges and solutions
title_full_unstemmed Qualitative systematic reviews of treatment burden in stroke, heart failure and diabetes - Methodological challenges and solutions
title_short Qualitative systematic reviews of treatment burden in stroke, heart failure and diabetes - Methodological challenges and solutions
title_sort qualitative systematic reviews of treatment burden in stroke, heart failure and diabetes - methodological challenges and solutions
topic Correspondence
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3568050/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23356353
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-10
work_keys_str_mv AT gallacherkatie qualitativesystematicreviewsoftreatmentburdeninstrokeheartfailureanddiabetesmethodologicalchallengesandsolutions
AT janibhautesh qualitativesystematicreviewsoftreatmentburdeninstrokeheartfailureanddiabetesmethodologicalchallengesandsolutions
AT morrisondeborah qualitativesystematicreviewsoftreatmentburdeninstrokeheartfailureanddiabetesmethodologicalchallengesandsolutions
AT macdonaldsara qualitativesystematicreviewsoftreatmentburdeninstrokeheartfailureanddiabetesmethodologicalchallengesandsolutions
AT blanedavid qualitativesystematicreviewsoftreatmentburdeninstrokeheartfailureanddiabetesmethodologicalchallengesandsolutions
AT erwinpatricia qualitativesystematicreviewsoftreatmentburdeninstrokeheartfailureanddiabetesmethodologicalchallengesandsolutions
AT maycarlr qualitativesystematicreviewsoftreatmentburdeninstrokeheartfailureanddiabetesmethodologicalchallengesandsolutions
AT montorivictorm qualitativesystematicreviewsoftreatmentburdeninstrokeheartfailureanddiabetesmethodologicalchallengesandsolutions
AT etondavidt qualitativesystematicreviewsoftreatmentburdeninstrokeheartfailureanddiabetesmethodologicalchallengesandsolutions
AT smithfiona qualitativesystematicreviewsoftreatmentburdeninstrokeheartfailureanddiabetesmethodologicalchallengesandsolutions
AT battydavidg qualitativesystematicreviewsoftreatmentburdeninstrokeheartfailureanddiabetesmethodologicalchallengesandsolutions
AT mairfrancess qualitativesystematicreviewsoftreatmentburdeninstrokeheartfailureanddiabetesmethodologicalchallengesandsolutions