scholarly journals SNI Model for Sustainable Black Women Owned Cooperatives

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
King Costa ◽  
Johlene Ntwane
Keyword(s):  
Black Women ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Sustainable Business ◽  
Research On Research ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Qualitative Evidence

This study focussed on developing a strategy framework for sustainable business undertaking by black women owned cooperatives in the Northern Cape district of Francis Baard. Black women owned cooperatives face a number of notable impediments that obstruct sustainable and successful business development and management. Some of the contributors to the current state of affairs could be attributable to lack of effective strategy focussed on cooperatives in general and black owned women cooperatives in particular. A number of studies have been published on the plight and status of cooperatives in South Africa and beyond, with clearly focussed recommendation emanating from empirical findings. This study, being aware of vast repository of literature on the phenomena and using the Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome (PICO) method, sought to answer the question, “how to develop a strategy framework for black women owned cooperatives to run sustainable businesses. A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis, a method within the Systematic Reviews approach was adopted as suitable orientation for answering the research question. A systematic review, also known as research on research (RoR) provides evidence based solution hinged upon primary research conducted by many different authors on the same context or situation. Using a Preferred Reporting items for systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), A total of 400 articles were retrieved from varied databases such as Ebsco-host, Google Scholar, Z-Library and Web of Science. Through a rigorous critical appraisal of these articles, 100 articles were finally included in the study as subject of analysis. Thematic analysis using the webQDA software produced thematic expressions that were finally treated to develop a theory/framework as per main research objective. The outcome of this qualitative evidence synthesis culminated in a formulation of the SNI Framework for Sustainable Black Women Owned Cooperatives.

scholarly journals Study protocol of a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis using two different approaches: Healthcare related needs and desires of older people with post-stroke aphasia

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e039348
Author(s):  
Nadine Janis Pohontsch ◽  
Thorsten Meyer ◽  
Yvonne Eisenmann ◽  
Maria-Inti Metzendorf ◽  
Verena Leve ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older People ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Treatment Success ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Healthcare Needs ◽  
Qualitative Evidence

IntroductionStroke is a frequent disease in the older population of Western Europe with aphasia as a common consequence. Aphasia is known to impede targeting treatment to individual patients’ needs and therefore may reduce treatment success. In Germany, the postacute care of patients who had stroke is provided by different healthcare institutions of different sectors (rehabilitation, nursing and primary care) with substantial difficulties to coordinate services. We will conduct two qualitative evidence syntheses (QESs) aiming at exploring distinct healthcare needs and desires of older people living with poststroke aphasia. We thereby hope to support the development of integrated care models based on needs of patients who are very restricted to communicate them. Since various methods of QESs exist, the aim of the study embedding the two QESs was to determine if findings differ according to the approach used.Methods and analysisWe will conduct two QESs by using metaethnography (ME) and thematic synthesis (ThS) independently to synthesise the findings of primary qualitative studies. The main differences between these two methods are the underlying epistemologies (idealism (ME) vs realism (ThS)) and the type of research question (emerging (ME) vs fixed (ThS)).We will search seven bibliographical databases. Inclusion criteria comprise: patients with poststroke aphasia, aged 65 years and older, studies in German/English, all types of qualitative studies concerning needs and desires related to healthcare or the healthcare system. The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines and includes three items from the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the synthesis of Qualitative Research checklist.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented on national conferences.

scholarly journals Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Where Are We at?

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 160940692199327
Author(s):  
Kate Flemming ◽  
Jane Noyes
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Method Paper ◽  
Increasing Demand

Qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) have increased in prominence and profile over the last decade as a discrete set of methodologies to undertake systematic reviews of primary qualitative research in health and social care and in education. The findings from a qualitative evidence synthesis can enable a richer interpretation of a particular phenomenon, set of circumstances, or experiences than single primary qualitative research studies can achieve. Qualitative evidence synthesis methods were developed in response to an increasing demand from health and social professionals, policy makers, guideline developers and educationalists for review evidence that goes beyond “what works” afforded by systematic reviews of effectiveness. The increasing interest in the synthesis of qualitative research has led to methodological developments documented across a plethora of texts and journal articles. This “State of the Method” paper aims to bring together these methodological developments in one place, contextualizing advances in methods with exemplars to support readers in making choices in approach to a synthesis and aid understanding. The paper clarifies what a “qualitative evidence synthesis” is and explores its role, purpose and development. It details the kind of questions a QES can explore, the processes associated with a QES, including the methods for synthesis. The rational and methods for integrating a QES with systematic reviews of effectiveness are also detailed. Finally approaches reporting and recognition of what a “good” or rigorous QES look like are provided.

scholarly journals Qualitative evidence synthesis for complex interventions and guideline development: clarification of the purpose, designs and relevant methods

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. e000882 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Flemming ◽  
Andrew Booth ◽  
Ruth Garside ◽  
Özge Tunçalp ◽  
Jane Noyes
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Complex Interventions ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Broad Term

This paper is one of a series exploring the implications of complexity for systematic reviews and guideline development, commissioned by the WHO. The paper specifically explores the role of qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative evidence synthesis is the broad term for the group of methods used to undertake systematic reviews of qualitative research evidence. As an approach, qualitative evidence synthesis is increasingly recognised as having a key role to play in addressing questions relating to intervention or system complexity, and guideline development processes. This is due to the unique role qualitative research can play in establishing the relative importance of outcomes, the acceptability, fidelity and reach of interventions, their feasibility in different settings and potential consequences on equity across populations. This paper outlines the purpose of qualitative evidence synthesis, provides detail of how qualitative evidence syntheses can help establish understanding and explanation of the complexity that can occur in relation to both interventions and systems, and how qualitative evidence syntheses can contribute to evidence to decision frameworks. It provides guidance for the choice of qualitative evidence synthesis methods in the context of guideline development for complex interventions, giving ‘real life’ examples of where this has occurred. Information to support decision-making around choice qualitative evidence synthesis methods in the context of guideline development is provided. Approaches for reporting qualitative evidence syntheses are discussed alongside mechanisms for assessing confidence in the findings of a review.

scholarly journals Qualitative Evidence Syntheses Within Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care: Developing a Template and Guidance

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 160940692110419
Author(s):  
Claire Glenton ◽  
Simon Lewin ◽  
Soo Downe ◽  
Elizabeth Paulsen ◽  
Susan Munabi-Babigumira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Health Conditions ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Effective Practice ◽  
Organisation Of Care ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Effective Practice

A growing number of researchers are preparing systematic reviews of qualitative evidence, often referred to as ‘qualitative evidence syntheses’. Cochrane published its first qualitative evidence synthesis in 2013 and published 27 such syntheses and protocols by August 2020. Most of these syntheses have explored how people experience or value different health conditions, treatments and outcomes. Several have been used by guideline producers and others to identify the topics that matter to people, consider the acceptability and feasibility of different healthcare options and identify implementation considerations, thereby complementing systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness.Guidance on how to conduct and report qualitative evidence syntheses exists. However, methods are evolving, and we still have more to learn about how to translate and integrate existing methodological guidance into practice. Cochrane’s Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) ( www.epoc.org ) has been involved in many of Cochrane’s qualitative evidence syntheses through the provision of editorial guidance and support and through co-authorship. In this article, we describe the development of a template and guidance for EPOC’s qualitative evidence syntheses and reflect on this process.

scholarly journals What are Systematic Reviews?

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Jack Nunn ◽  
Steven Chang
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Environmental Interventions

Systematic reviews are a type of review that uses repeatable analytical methods to collect secondary data and analyse it. Systematic reviews are a type of evidence synthesis which formulate research questions that are broad or narrow in scope, and identify and synthesize data that directly relate to the systematic review question. While some people might associate ‘systematic review’ with 'meta-analysis', there are multiple kinds of review which can be defined as ‘systematic’ which do not involve a meta-analysis. Some systematic reviews critically appraise research studies, and synthesize findings qualitatively or quantitatively. Systematic reviews are often designed to provide an exhaustive summary of current evidence relevant to a research question. For example, systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are an important way of informing evidence-based medicine, and a review of existing studies is often quicker and cheaper than embarking on a new study. While systematic reviews are often applied in the biomedical or healthcare context, they can be used in other areas where an assessment of a precisely defined subject would be helpful. Systematic reviews may examine clinical tests, public health interventions, environmental interventions, social interventions, adverse effects, qualitative evidence syntheses, methodological reviews, policy reviews, and economic evaluations. An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is highly recommended for professionals involved in the delivery of health care, public health and public policy.

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 193-206
Author(s):  
Nandi Siegfried ◽  
Lawrence Mbuagbaw
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Similar Data ◽  
Inaccurate Information ◽  
Healthcare Decision Making ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

Systematic reviews play an important role in healthcare decision-making. When conducted correctly, they provide up-to-date, comprehensive, and replicable summaries of evidence. Authors of systematic reviews are expected to develop a protocol that outlines the research question and key methodological features of their review. A comprehensive and exhaustive search should be conducted, followed by screening to capture studies that meet the prespecified inclusion criteria. Once the relevant studies have been identified, data will be extracted, using a dedicated tool that permits the review authors to confirm the eligibility of the study and collect information on its design, risk of bias, and results. Sufficiently similar data may be pooled using meta-analytic techniques or synthesized narratively. A summary of the overall quality of evidence for each outcome is an essential component of a systematic review. The main concerns with systematic reviews are (1) selection bias: systematic exclusion of relevant studies due to publication status or language; (2) indexing bias: failure to identify relevant studies because they are not indexed accurately; and (3) information bias: missing or inaccurate information in the included studies. Other approaches to evidence synthesis include mapping the evidence with scoping reviews; conducting overviews of systematic reviews; using individual patient data; conducting network meta-analyses for multiple comparisons; conducting rapid reviews when evidence is needed urgently; synthesis of diagnostic accuracy data; and synthesis of qualitative data. Systematic reviews often inform clinical guidelines and require careful planning and execution by teams with content and methodological expertise.

scholarly journals What are Systematic Reviews?

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 4
Author(s):  
Jack Nunn ◽  
◽  
Steven Chang ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Environmental Interventions

Systematic reviews are a type of review that uses repeatable analytical methods to collect secondary data and analyse it. Systematic reviews are a type of evidence synthesis which formulate research questions that are broad or narrow in scope, and identify and synthesize data that directly relate to the systematic review question.[1] While some people might associate ‘systematic review’ with 'meta-analysis', there are multiple kinds of review which can be defined as ‘systematic’ which do not involve a meta-analysis. Some systematic reviews critically appraise research studies, and synthesize findings qualitatively or quantitatively.[2] Systematic reviews are often designed to provide an exhaustive summary of current evidence relevant to a research question. For example, systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are an important way of informing evidence-based medicine,[3] and a review of existing studies is often quicker and cheaper than embarking on a new study. While systematic reviews are often applied in the biomedical or healthcare context, they can be used in other areas where an assessment of a precisely defined subject would be helpful.[4] Systematic reviews may examine clinical tests, public health interventions, environmental interventions,[5] social interventions, adverse effects, qualitative evidence syntheses, methodological reviews, policy reviews, and economic evaluations.[6][7] An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is highly recommended for professionals involved in the delivery of health care, public health and public policy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document