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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Booth, Andrew
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