scholarly journals Systematiske oversikter og kvalitativ forskning

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rigmor C. Berg ◽  
Heather Munthe-Kaas
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Potential Role ◽  
English Summary ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Quantitative Evidence ◽  
Qualitative Evidence

<p>Interessen for å samle og syntetisere kvalitative studier i systematiske oversikter er voksende. Det pekes blant annet på at sammenstillinger av kvalitativ forskning har stor verdi når det gjelder potensialet til å informere politikk og praksis. Systematiske oversikter om effekt gir innsikt i hvorvidt et tiltak virker; systematiske oversikter med kvalitativ forskning gir innsikt i hvordan og hvorfor eventuelle virkninger oppstår. Nytten av denne type oversikter erkjennes nå bl.a. av internasjonale organisasjoner som Cochrane og Campbell-samarbeidene. I Cochrane-håndboka vises det til at kvalitativ forskning kan bidra med nyttig informasjon på flere måter: Kvalitative datasett kan informere, styrke, utvide og supplere systematiske oversikter om effekt av tiltak. Metodene for gjennomføring av oversikter med kvalitativ forskning er i rask utvikling, og det fins for øyeblikket ingen standard tilnærming. Når det gjelder søk etter kvalitative studier må disse ofte være bredere, men forøvrig gjelder mange av de samme prinsippene som for litteratursøk innen systematiske oversikter om effekt av tiltak. Det forskes på og debatteres om hva slags kriterier som bør benyttes i utvelgelsen av kvalitative studier og hvorvidt man skal ekskludere studier basert på metodologisk kvalitet. Det fins flere ulike måter å syntetisere resultater fra kvalitative studier på, og det er også mulig å sammenstille resultater fra både kvalitative og kvantitative studier i én analyse. De mest hyppig brukte metodene er metaetnografi og tematisk analyse.</p><p>Berg RC, Munthe-Kaas H. <strong>Systematic reviews in qualitative research</strong>. <em>Nor J Epidemiol 2013</em>; <strong>23</strong> (2): 131-139.</p><p><strong>ENGLISH SUMMARY</strong></p><p>There is growing interest in summarising and synthesising qualitative research in systematic reviews. Among other things, this indicates an increasing appreciation for the potential role of qualitative evidence in informing policy and practice. While systematic reviews of effect studies can establish whether an intervention works, systematic reviews of qualitative research can offer insights into the “how” and “why” of potential effects. The importance of such questions, and the value of systematic reviews of qualitative research, is now recognized by a number of international organizations, including the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations. The Cochrane Handbook describes four ways in which qualitative research can contribute to evidence-based practice, namely by informing, enhancing, extending, and supplementing systematic reviews of the effect of interventions. The methodology for conducting reviews of qualitative research is rapidly developing, and at present there is no standard approach. Systematic searches for qualitative research are often more broadly cast but otherwise follow many of the same principles of a literature search within a systematic review of effect. There are ongoing debates and research regarding criteria for inclusion of studies in general, and whether to include studies of low methodological quality in particular. An array of methods to synthesise qualitative evidence exists, and such evidence may also be synthesised together with quantitative evidence. Meta-ethnography and thematic analysis are the most commonly used synthesis methods.</p>

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.

Qualitative research methods for institutional analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 409-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Skarbek
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Statistical Estimation ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Institutional Analysis ◽  
Qualitative Research Methods ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Quantitative Evidence ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Comparative Case Studies

AbstractHow can economists use qualitative evidence – such as archival materials, interviews, and ethnography – to study institutions? While applied economists typically rely on quantitative evidence and statistical estimation, many important aspects of institutions and institutional change appear in the form of qualitative evidence. This raises the question if, and how, social scientists trained in quantitative methods can exploit and analyze this evidence. This paper discusses two qualitative research methods that are both commonly used outside of economics: comparative case studies and process tracing. Drawing on existing research about crime and political revolutions, it discusses these two methods and how to implement them to improve institutional analysis.

scholarly journals The role of systematic reviews of qualitative evidence in evaluating interventions: a case study

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theo Lorenc ◽  
Mark Pearson ◽  
Farah Jamal ◽  
Chris Cooper ◽  
Ruth Garside
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Qualitative Evidence

scholarly journals The Transnational Capitalist Class, the Trilateral Commission and the Case of Japan: Rhetorics and Realities

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hisanao Takase
Keyword(s):  
Multinational Corporations ◽  
Capitalist Class ◽  
Network Ties ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Neoliberal Globalization ◽  
International Context ◽  
Quantitative Evidence ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Japanese Capitalism

Although the Japanese elite are now part of neoliberal globalization, this elite's rise within the transnational capitalist fraction has escaped the attention of social scientists outside Japan, with some exceptions including Stephen Gill&rsquo;s (1990)&rsquo;s work on the Trilateral Commission (TC) and Leslie Sklair&rsquo;s (2001) book on multinational corporations and banks. The paper addresses this relatively underwritten case, by describing the transformations represented by transnationalisation of production and ownership and the historical and international context of Japanese capitalism. In addition, it examines the important role of the TC in supporting the creation of a transnational capitalist class. Throughout, I highlight the rhetorics used by the TC that emphasize the importance and benefits of neoliberal forms of economic transnationalization. In addition, I trace Japanese elite support for neoliberal forms of transnational integration in a series of Japanese economic Reports written in the 1990s. And, I examine quantitative evidence, as well as suggestive qualitative evidence around network ties of increasing transnationalization involving Japan. The article concludes that Japan&rsquo;s elite is rhetorically and economically align with Western transnational capital fractions and increasingly acting as a transnational capitalist bloc, including through participation in the TC.

scholarly journals How individual consultations with a librarian can support systematic reviews in the social sciences

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Dalton
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Potential Role ◽  
Qualitative Survey ◽  
The Social ◽  
Information Skills ◽  
Additional Value ◽  
Individual Consultation

The use of systematic review as a research method has become increasingly prevalent in the social and human sciences. However, the role of the librarian in delivering library and information skills (LIS) support in this area remains relatively undocumented, in contrast with the health sciences where systematic review support is often highly visible and embedded. This exploratory study uses qualitative survey data collected from researchers who attended an individual consultation with a librarian and aims to identify the potential role and impact that LIS support can have. The results indicate that both the skills and confidence of researchers increased as a result of the interaction, and that the personalised nature of the consultation provided additional value. However, awareness of the service was relatively low, indicating the need for additional marketing and promotion, as well as increased liaison and engagement with academic and research staff. These findings provide a foundation for further research into the design and delivery of LIS support to those undertaking systematic reviews in the social sciences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document