Cargando…
Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review
BACKGROUND: Qualitative systematic reviews or qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are increasingly recognised as a way to enhance the value of systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical trials. They can explain the mechanisms by which interventions, evaluated within trials, might achieve their effect. Th...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4855695/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27145932 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x |
_version_ | 1782430396584034304 |
---|---|
author | Booth, Andrew |
author_facet | Booth, Andrew |
author_sort | Booth, Andrew |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Qualitative systematic reviews or qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are increasingly recognised as a way to enhance the value of systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical trials. They can explain the mechanisms by which interventions, evaluated within trials, might achieve their effect. They can investigate differences in effects between different population groups. They can identify which outcomes are most important to patients, carers, health professionals and other stakeholders. QES can explore the impact of acceptance, feasibility, meaningfulness and implementation-related factors within a real world setting and thus contribute to the design and further refinement of future interventions. To produce valid, reliable and meaningful QES requires systematic identification of relevant qualitative evidence. Although the methodologies of QES, including methods for information retrieval, are well-documented, little empirical evidence exists to inform their conduct and reporting. METHODS: This structured methodological overview examines papers on searching for qualitative research identified from the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Methodology Register and from citation searches of 15 key papers. RESULTS: A single reviewer reviewed 1299 references. Papers reporting methodological guidance, use of innovative methodologies or empirical studies of retrieval methods were categorised under eight topical headings: overviews and methodological guidance, sampling, sources, structured questions, search procedures, search strategies and filters, supplementary strategies and standards. CONCLUSIONS: This structured overview presents a contemporaneous view of information retrieval for qualitative research and identifies a future research agenda. This review concludes that poor empirical evidence underpins current information practice in information retrieval of qualitative research. A trend towards improved transparency of search methods and further evaluation of key search procedures offers the prospect of rapid development of search methods. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4855695 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-48556952016-05-05 Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review Booth, Andrew Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Qualitative systematic reviews or qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are increasingly recognised as a way to enhance the value of systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical trials. They can explain the mechanisms by which interventions, evaluated within trials, might achieve their effect. They can investigate differences in effects between different population groups. They can identify which outcomes are most important to patients, carers, health professionals and other stakeholders. QES can explore the impact of acceptance, feasibility, meaningfulness and implementation-related factors within a real world setting and thus contribute to the design and further refinement of future interventions. To produce valid, reliable and meaningful QES requires systematic identification of relevant qualitative evidence. Although the methodologies of QES, including methods for information retrieval, are well-documented, little empirical evidence exists to inform their conduct and reporting. METHODS: This structured methodological overview examines papers on searching for qualitative research identified from the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Methodology Register and from citation searches of 15 key papers. RESULTS: A single reviewer reviewed 1299 references. Papers reporting methodological guidance, use of innovative methodologies or empirical studies of retrieval methods were categorised under eight topical headings: overviews and methodological guidance, sampling, sources, structured questions, search procedures, search strategies and filters, supplementary strategies and standards. CONCLUSIONS: This structured overview presents a contemporaneous view of information retrieval for qualitative research and identifies a future research agenda. This review concludes that poor empirical evidence underpins current information practice in information retrieval of qualitative research. A trend towards improved transparency of search methods and further evaluation of key search procedures offers the prospect of rapid development of search methods. BioMed Central 2016-05-04 /pmc/articles/PMC4855695/ /pubmed/27145932 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x Text en © Booth. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Booth, Andrew Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review |
title | Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review |
title_full | Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review |
title_fullStr | Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review |
title_full_unstemmed | Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review |
title_short | Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review |
title_sort | searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4855695/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27145932 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT boothandrew searchingforqualitativeresearchforinclusioninsystematicreviewsastructuredmethodologicalreview |