‘Trying to pin down jelly’ - exploring intuitive processes in quality assessment for meta-ethnography

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Karen Barker³  JoyAnn Andrews³  Eloise Carr⁵  Michelle Briggs²  Nick Allcock¹  Kate Seers⁴  Francine Toye³ 

[1] School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, UK;Institute of Health and Well Being, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK;Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK;Royal College of Nursing Research institute, School of Health & Social Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK;Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada

关键词: Meta-ethnography;    Qualitative synthesis;    Qualitative;    Quality appraisal;   

Others  :  1125969
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-13-46

 received in 2012-08-12, accepted in 2013-03-08,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Studies that systematically search for and synthesise qualitative research are becoming more evident in health care, and they can make an important contribution to patient care. However, there is still no agreement as to whether, or how we should appraise studies for inclusion. We aimed to explore the intuitive processes that determined the ‘quality’ of qualitative research for inclusion in qualitative research syntheses. We were particularly interested to explore the way that knowledge was constructed.

Methods

We used qualitative methods to explore the process of quality appraisal within a team of seven qualitative researchers funded to undertake a meta-ethnography of chronic non-malignant musculoskeletal pain. Team discussions took place monthly between October 2010 and June 2012 and were recorded and transcribed. Data was coded and organised using constant comparative method. The development of our conceptual analysis was both iterative and collaborative. The strength of this team approach to quality came from open and honest discussion, where team members felt free to agree, disagree, or change their position within the safety of the group.

Results

We suggest two core facets of quality for inclusion in meta-ethnography - (1) Conceptual clarity; how clearly has the author articulated a concept that facilitates theoretical insight. (2) Interpretive rigour; fundamentally, can the interpretation ‘be trusted?’ Our findings showed that three important categories help the reader to judge interpretive rigour: (ii) What is the context of the interpretation? (ii) How inductive is the interpretation? (iii) Has the researcher challenged their interpretation?

Conclusions

We highlight that methods alone do not determine the quality of research for inclusion into a meta-ethnography. The strength of a concept and its capacity to facilitate theoretical insight is integral to meta-ethnography, and arguably to the quality of research. However, we suggest that to be judged ‘good enough’ there also needs to be some assurance that qualitative findings are more than simply anecdotal. Although our conceptual model was developed specifically for meta-ethnography, it may be transferable to other research methodologies.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Toye et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Seers K, Toye F: What is quality in qualitative health research? Evid Based Nurs 2011, 15(1):1.
• [2]Campbell R, Pound P, Morgan M, Daker-White G, Britten N, Pill R, Yardley L, Pope C, Donovan J: Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technol Assess 2011, 15(43):1-164.
• [3]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.
• [4]Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, Parker S, Watson P: Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technol Assess 1998., 2(16) http://www.hta.ac.uk/fullmono/mon216.pdf webcite
• [5]Dixon-Woods M, Booth A, Sutton A: Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports. Qualitative Research 2007, 7:375-422.
• [6]Hannes K, Macaitis K: A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis: update on a review of published papers. Qualitative Research 2012, 12(4):402-442.
• [7]Sandelowski M, Barrosso J: Handbook for synthesising qualitative research. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2007.
• [8]Blyth FM: The demography of chronic pain: an overview. In Chronic Pain Epidemiology From Aetiology to Public Health. Edited by Croft P, Blyth FM, Windt D. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010:19-29.
• [9]Carroll C, Booth A, Lloyd-Jones M: Should we exclude inadequately reported studies from qualitative systematic reviews? An Evaluation of Sensitivity Analyses in Two Case Study Reviews. Qualitative Health Research 2012, 22(10):1425-1434.
• [10]Higgins JPT, Green S: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
• [11]Dixon-Woods M, Shaw R, Agarwal S, Smith J: The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Saf Health Care 2004, 13:223-225.
• [12]Smith J, Deemer D: The Problem of Criteria in the Age of Relativism. In Handbook of Qualitative Research. Edited by Lincoln NDY. London: Sage; 2000.
• [13]Polanyi M: The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge; 1966.
• [14]Noblit G, Hare R: Meta-ethnography: Synthesising Qualitative Studies. California: Sage Publications; 1988.
• [15]Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A: Synthesising qualitative and quantitative research evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005, 10(1):45-53.
• [16]Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, Britten N, Pill R, Morgan M, Donovan J: Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med 2003, 56:671-684.
• [17]Malpass A, Shaw A, Sharp D, Walter F, Feder G, Ridd M, Kessler D: "Medication career" or "Moral career"? The two sides of managing anti-dperessants: A meta-ethnography of patients experience of antidepressants. Soc Sci Med 2009, 68:154-168.
• [18]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, 61:133-155.
• [19]CASP: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme: making sense of evidence about clinical effectiveness: 10 questions to help you make sense of qualitative research. http://wwwcasp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/CASP_Qualitative_Appraisal_Checklist_14oct10.pdf webcite 2010
• [20]Atkins S, Lewin S, Smith H, Engel M, Fretheim A, Volmink J: Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature:Lessons learnt. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008, 8:21. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]BI-QARI: QARI critical appraisal instrument. In The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers Manual. Adelaide ; 2011. availabe at, http://www.joannabriggs.edu.au/Documents/sumari/Reviewers%20Manual-2011.pdf webcite
• [22]Seale C: The quality of qualitative research. London: Sage publications; 1999.
• [23]Holton J: The coding process and its challenges. In The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory. Edited by Bryant A, Charmaz C. Los Angeles: Sage; 2007:265-289.
• [24]Altheide DL, Johnson JM: Criteria for Assessing Interpretive Validity in Qualitative Research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research. Edited by Lincoln ND Y. London: Sage; 1994.
• [25]Guba E, Lincoln Y: Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions and Emerging Confluences. In Handbook of qualitative research (third edition). Edited by Denzin N, Lincoln Y. London: Sage; 2005.
• [26]Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L, National-Centre-for-Social-Research: Cabinet Office: Quality in Qualitive Evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. 2003.
• [27]Boychuk-Duchscher JE, Morgan D: Grounded theory: reflections on the emergence vs. forcing debate. J Adv Nurs 2004, 48(6):605-612.
• [28]Denzin NK: The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Chicago: Aldine; 1970.
• [29]Charmaz K: Constructing grounded theory. California: Sage Publications; 2006.
• [30]Lincoln Y, Guba E: Naturalistic Enquiry. California: Sage; 1995.
• [31]Smith J, Hodkinson P: Relativism, Criteria and Politics. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Edited by Denzin N, Lincoln Y. London: Sage; 2005.