Dataset Information

A methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct to articulate the complex analytical phases.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Decision making in health and social care requires robust syntheses of both quantitative and qualitative evidence. Meta-ethnography is a seven-phase methodology for synthesising qualitative studies. Developed in 1988 by sociologists in education Noblit and Hare, meta-ethnography has evolved since its inception; it is now widely used in healthcare research and is gaining popularity in education research. The aim of this article is to provide up-to-date, in-depth guidance on conducting the complex analytic synthesis phases 4 to 6 of meta-ethnography through analysis of the latest methodological evidence. METHODS:We report findings from a methodological systematic review conducted from 2015 to 2016. Fourteen databases and five other online resources were searched. Expansive searches were also conducted resulting in inclusion of 57 publications on meta-ethnography conduct and reporting from a range of academic disciplines published from 1988 to 2016. RESULTS:Current guidance on applying meta-ethnography originates from a small group of researchers using the methodology in a health context. We identified that researchers have operationalised the analysis and synthesis methods of meta-ethnography - determining how studies are related (phase 4), translating studies into one another (phase 5), synthesising translations (phase 6) and line of argument synthesis - to suit their own syntheses resulting in variation in methods and their application. Empirical research is required to compare the impact of different methods of translation and synthesis. Some methods are potentially better at preserving links with the context and meaning of primary studies, a key principle of meta-ethnography. A meta-ethnography can and should include reciprocal and refutational translation and line of argument synthesis, rather than only one of these, to maximise the impact of its outputs. CONCLUSION:The current work is the first to articulate and differentiate the methodological variations and their application for different purposes and represents a significant advance in the understanding of the methodological application of meta-ethnography.

SUBMITTER: France EF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6380066 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct to articulate the complex analytical phases.

France Emma F EF Uny Isabelle I Ring Nicola N Turley Ruth L RL Maxwell Margaret M Duncan Edward A S EAS Jepson Ruth G RG Roberts Rachel J RJ Noyes Jane J

BMC medical research methodology 20190218 1

<h4>Background</h4>Decision making in health and social care requires robust syntheses of both quantitative and qualitative evidence. Meta-ethnography is a seven-phase methodology for synthesising qualitative studies. Developed in 1988 by sociologists in education Noblit and Hare, meta-ethnography has evolved since its inception; it is now widely used in healthcare research and is gaining popularity in education research. The aim of this article is to provide up-to-date, in-depth guidance on con ...[more]

PMID: 30777031

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Syntheses of qualitative studies can inform health policy, services and our understanding of patient experience. Meta-ethnography is a systematic seven-phase interpretive qualitative synthesis approach well-suited to producing new theories and conceptual models. However, there are concerns about the quality of meta-ethnography reporting, particularly the analysis and synthesis processes. Our aim was to investigate the application and reporting of methods in recent meta-ethnography journal papers, focusing on the analysis and synthesis process and output. METHODS:Methodological systematic review of health-related meta-ethnography journal papers published from 2012-2013. We searched six electronic databases, Google Scholar and Zetoc for papers using key terms including 'meta-ethnography.' Two authors independently screened papers by title and abstract with 100% agreement. We identified 32 relevant papers. Three authors independently extracted data and all authors analysed the application and reporting of methods using content analysis. RESULTS:Meta-ethnography was applied in diverse ways, sometimes inappropriately. In 13% of papers the approach did not suit the research aim. In 66% of papers reviewers did not follow the principles of meta-ethnography. The analytical and synthesis processes were poorly reported overall. In only 31% of papers reviewers clearly described how they analysed conceptual data from primary studies (phase 5, 'translation' of studies) and in only one paper (3%) reviewers explicitly described how they conducted the analytic synthesis process (phase 6). In 38% of papers we could not ascertain if reviewers had achieved any new interpretation of primary studies. In over 30% of papers seminal methodological texts which could have informed methods were not cited. CONCLUSIONS:We believe this is the first in-depth methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct and reporting. Meta-ethnography is an evolving approach. Current reporting of methods, analysis and synthesis lacks clarity and comprehensiveness. This is a major barrier to use of meta-ethnography findings that could contribute significantly to the evidence base because it makes judging their rigour and credibility difficult. To realise the high potential value of meta-ethnography for enhancing health care and understanding patient experience requires reporting that clearly conveys the methodology, analysis and findings. Tailored meta-ethnography reporting guidelines, developed through expert consensus, could improve reporting.

Project description:BackgroundBefore considering whether to use a multivariable (diagnostic or prognostic) prediction model, it is essential that its performance be evaluated in data that were not used to develop the model (referred to as external validation). We critically appraised the methodological conduct and reporting of external validation studies of multivariable prediction models.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of articles describing some form of external validation of one or more multivariable prediction models indexed in PubMed core clinical journals published in 2010. Study data were extracted in duplicate on design, sample size, handling of missing data, reference to the original study developing the prediction models and predictive performance measures.Results11,826 articles were identified and 78 were included for full review, which described the evaluation of 120 prediction models. in participant data that were not used to develop the model. Thirty-three articles described both the development of a prediction model and an evaluation of its performance on a separate dataset, and 45 articles described only the evaluation of an existing published prediction model on another dataset. Fifty-seven percent of the prediction models were presented and evaluated as simplified scoring systems. Sixteen percent of articles failed to report the number of outcome events in the validation datasets. Fifty-four percent of studies made no explicit mention of missing data. Sixty-seven percent did not report evaluating model calibration whilst most studies evaluated model discrimination. It was often unclear whether the reported performance measures were for the full regression model or for the simplified models.ConclusionsThe vast majority of studies describing some form of external validation of a multivariable prediction model were poorly reported with key details frequently not presented. The validation studies were characterised by poor design, inappropriate handling and acknowledgement of missing data and one of the most key performance measures of prediction models i.e. calibration often omitted from the publication. It may therefore not be surprising that an overwhelming majority of developed prediction models are not used in practice, when there is a dearth of well-conducted and clearly reported (external validation) studies describing their performance on independent participant data.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Despite evidence supporting physical activity in primary and secondary prevention, many individuals do not meet recommended levels. Mobile health is a field with a growing evidence base and is proposed as a convenient method for delivering health interventions. Despite qualitative exploration of stakeholder perspectives, there is a lack of synthesis to inform evidence-based design. This study aims to resolve this by identifying and synthesising qualitative research on the experience of using mobile health applications to promote physical activity. METHOD:A systematic review focused on qualitative research, mobile health and physical activity was conducted in October 2017 using CINAHL, ERIC, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases. The protocol was registered with the Prospero database (Registration: CRD42018080610). Results were synthesised as a meta-ethnography. RESULTS:Fifteen studies were included, covering a variety of populations, including people with diabetes, obesity, and serious mental illness. Five themes emerged: (a) personal factors and the experience of using mobile health, (b) mobile health and changes in thinking that support physical activity, (c) the experience of mobile health features, including prompts, goal setting and gamification, (d) the experience of personalised mobile health and physical activity, (e) technical and user issues in mobile health and their effect on experience. CONCLUSION:Personal factors and features of the device influenced the experience of using mobile health to support physical activity. The two mechanisms through which mobile health use facilitated physical activity were strengthening of motivation and changes in self-awareness and strategising. Experiences were not entirely unproblematic as technical issues and adverse effects related to self-monitoring were noted. This synthesis provides insight into the experience of mobile health and is useful for researchers and healthcare practitioners interested in designing user-informed mobile health interventions for promoting physical activity.

Dataset Information

A methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct to articulate the complex analytical phases.

Publications

A methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct to articulate the complex analytical phases.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets