Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Jonathan Craig²  Sandy Oliver¹  Elizabeth McInnes³  Kate Flemming⁴  Allison Tong² 

[1] Institute of Education, University of London, London, WC1H 0AL, UK;Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW, 2145, Australia;National Centre for Clinical Outcomes Research, Australian Catholic University, St Vincent’s Hospital, Darlinghurst, NSW, 2010, Australia;Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, Y010 5DD, UK

关键词: Reporting;    Qualitative health research;    Standards;    Thematic synthesis;   

Others  :  1126435
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-12-181

 received in 2012-06-25, accepted in 2012-11-12,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

The syntheses of multiple qualitative studies can pull together data across different contexts, generate new theoretical or conceptual models, identify research gaps, and provide evidence for the development, implementation and evaluation of health interventions. This study aims to develop a framework for reporting the synthesis of qualitative health research.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search for guidance and reviews relevant to the synthesis of qualitative research, methodology papers, and published syntheses of qualitative health research in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and relevant organisational websites to May 2011. Initial items were generated inductively from guides to synthesizing qualitative health research. The preliminary checklist was piloted against forty published syntheses of qualitative research, purposively selected to capture a range of year of publication, methods and methodologies, and health topics. We removed items that were duplicated, impractical to assess, and rephrased items for clarity.

Results

The Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREQ) statement consists of 21 items grouped into five main domains: introduction, methods and methodology, literature search and selection, appraisal, and synthesis of findings.

Conclusions

The ENTREQ statement can help researchers to report the stages most commonly associated with the synthesis of qualitative health research: searching and selecting qualitative research, quality appraisal, and methods for synthesising qualitative findings. The synthesis of qualitative research is an expanding and evolving methodological area and we would value feedback from all stakeholders for the continued development and extension of the ENTREQ statement.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Tong et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Barnett-Page E, Thomas J: Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. 01/09 edition. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, London; 2009.
• [2]Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R: Using meta ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002, 7(4):209-215.
• [3]Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, Britten N, Pill R, Morgan M, Donovan J: Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experience of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med 2003, 56(4):671-684.
• [4]Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, Annandale E, Arthur A, Harvey J, Hsu R, Katbamna S, Olsen R, Smith L, et al.: Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006, 6:35-47.
• [5]Pound P, Britten N, Morgan M, Yardley L, Pope C, Daker-White G, Campbell R: Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. Soc Sci Med 2005, 61(1):133-155.
• [6]Smith LK, Pope C, Botha JL: Patients' help-seeking experiences and delay in cancer presentation: a qualitative synthesis. Lancet 2005, 366:825-831.
• [7]Tong A, Morton RL, Howard K, Craig JC: Adolescent experiences following organ transplantation: a systematic review of qualitative studies. J Pediatr 2010, 155(4):542-549.
• [8]McInnes RJ, Chambers JA: Supporting breastfeeding mothers: qualitative synthesis. J Adv Nurs 2008, 62(4):407-427.
• [9]Flemming K: The use of morphine to treat cancer-related pain: a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative research. J Pain Symptom Manag 2010, 39(1):139-154.
• [10]Ring N, Ritchie K, Mandava L, Jepson R: A guide to synthesising qualitative research for researchers undertaking health technology assessments and systematic reviews. 2010. Available from: http://www.nhshealthquality.org/nhsqis/8837.html webcite
• [11]Noblit GW, Hare HD: Meta-ethnography: synthesising qualitative studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1988.
• [12]Thomas J, Harden A: Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008, 8:45.
• [13]Arai L, Britten N, Popay J, Roberts H, Petticrew M, Rodgers M, Sowden A: Testing methodological developments in the conduct of narrative synthesis: a demonstration review of research on the implementation of smoke alarm interventions. Evid Policy 2007, 3(3):361-383.
• [14]Thorne S, Paterson B, Acorn S, Canam C, Joachim G, Jillings C: Chronic illness experience: insights from a meta-study. Qual Health Res 2002, 12:437-452.
• [15]Edwards M, Davies M, Edwards A: What are the external influences on information exchange and shared decision-making in healthcare consultations: a meta-synthesis of the literature. Patient Educ Counsel 2009, 75:37-52.
• [16]Timminen KA, Holt NL: A meta-study of qualitative research examining stressor appraisals and coping among adolescents in sport. J Sports Sci 2010, 28(14):1563-1580.
• [17]Atkins S, Lewin S, Smith H, Engel M, Fretheim A, Volminck J: Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: lessons learnt. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008, 8:21.
• [18]Dixon-Woods M: Using framework-based synthesis for conducting reviews of qualitative studies. BMC Med 2011, 9:39.
• [19]Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig JC: Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007, 19(6):349-357.
• [20]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D, The PRISMA Group: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Med 2009, 6(7):e1000097.
• [21]Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman D: Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLOS Med 2010, 7(2):e1000217.
• [22]Eaves YD: A synthesis technique for grounded theory data analysis. J Adv Nurs 2001, 35(5):654-663.
• [23]Kearney MH: Enduring love: a grounded formal theory of women's experience of domestic violence. Res Nurs Health 2001, 24:270-282.
• [24]Paterson BL, Thorne SE, Canam C, Jillings C: Meta-study of qualitative health research. A practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001.
• [25]Mays N, Pope C: Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. Br Med J 2000, 320:50-52.
• [26]Flemming K: The use of morphine to treat cancer-related pain: a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative research. J Pain Symptom Manage 2010, 39(1):139-154.
• [27]Hubbard G, McLachlan K, Forbat L, Munday D: Recognition by family members that relatives with neurodegenerative disease are likely to die within a year: A meta-ethnography. Palliat Med 2011. Online first
• [28]Morton RL, Tong A, Howard K, Snelling P, Webster AC: The views of patients and carers in treatment decision-making for chronic kidney disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Br Med J 2010, 340:c112.
• [29]Lipworth WL, Davey H, Carter S, Hooker C: Beliefs and beyond: what can we learn from qualitative studies of lay people's understanding of cancer risk. Health Expect 2010, 13(2):113-124.
• [30]Ridd M, Shaw A, Lewis G, Salisbury C: The patient-doctor relationship: a synthesis of the qualitative literature on patients' perspectives. Br J Gen Prac 2009, 29(561):e116-e133.
• [31]Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L: Quality in qualitative evaluation: a framework for assessing research evidence. London: Government Chief Social Researcher's Office; 2003.
• [32]Flemming K, Briggs M: Electronic searching to locate qualitative research: evaluation of three strategies. J Adv Nurs 2007, 57(1):95-100.
• [33]Dixon-Woods M, Booth A, Sutton AJ: Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports. Qual Res 2007, 7(3):375-422.
• [34]Barbour R: Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? Br Med J 2001, 332:1115-1117.
• [35]Dixon-Woods M, Sutton A, Shaw R, Miller T, Smith J, Young B, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones D: Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a quantitative and qualitative comparison of three methods. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007, 12(1):42-47.
• [36]Harden A, Gough D: Quality and relevance appraisal. In An introduction to systematic reviews. Edited by Gouhg D, Oliver S, Thomas J. London: Sage; 2012.
• [37]Questions to help you make sense of qualitative research 2002. Available at http://www.casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/CASP_Qualitative_Appraisal_Checklist_14oct10.pdf webcite
• [38]The Joanna Briggs Institute: Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers. 2008 edition. The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2008.
• [39]Dixon-Woods M, Shaw RL, Agarwal S, Smith JA: The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Saf Health Care 2004, 13:223-225.
• [40]Malterud K: Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet 2001, 358:483-488.
• [41]Popay J, Rogers A, Williams G: Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qual Health Res 1998, 8:341-351.
• [42]Brunton G, Harden A, Rees R, Kavanagh J, Oliver S, Oakley A: Children and physical activity: a systematic review of barriers and facilitators. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2003.