Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/21276
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFrance, Emmaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorRing, Nicola Aen_UK
dc.contributor.authorThomas, Rebeccaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorNoyes, Janeen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMaxwell, Margareten_UK
dc.contributor.authorJepson, Ruthen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2017-06-10T05:04:25Z-
dc.date.available2017-06-10T05:04:25Z-
dc.date.issued2014-11-19en_UK
dc.identifier.other119en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/21276-
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherBioMed Central Ltden_UK
dc.relationFrance E, Ring NA, Thomas R, Noyes J, Maxwell M & Jepson R (2014) A methodological systematic review of what's wrong with meta-ethnography reporting. <i>BMC Medical Research Methodology</i>, 14, Art. No.: 119. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-119en_UK
dc.rights© 2014 France et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_UK
dc.subjectMeta-ethnographyen_UK
dc.subjectSystematic reviewen_UK
dc.subjectQualitative health researchen_UK
dc.subjectReportingen_UK
dc.subjectQualitative synthesisen_UK
dc.subjectHealthen_UK
dc.subjectEvidence-based practiceen_UK
dc.titleA methodological systematic review of what's wrong with meta-ethnography reportingen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/1471-2288-14-119en_UK
dc.identifier.pmid25407140en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleBMC Medical Research Methodologyen_UK
dc.citation.issn1471-2288en_UK
dc.citation.volume14en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.author.emailnicola.ring@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationNMAHPen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationHealth Sciences Health - Stirling - LEGACYen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Stirlingen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBangor Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationNMAHPen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationHealth Sciences Stirlingen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000346746800001en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-84988579079en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid611213en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0003-0876-7030en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0003-3318-9500en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-9446-445Xen_UK
dc.date.accepted2014-10-27en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2014-10-27en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2014-11-25en_UK
rioxxterms.apcpaiden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorFrance, Emma|0000-0003-0876-7030en_UK
local.rioxx.authorRing, Nicola A|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorThomas, Rebecca|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorNoyes, Jane|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMaxwell, Margaret|0000-0003-3318-9500en_UK
local.rioxx.authorJepson, Ruth|0000-0002-9446-445Xen_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|https://isni.org/isni/0000000122484331en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2014-11-25en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/|2014-11-25|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameBMC Medical Research Methodology 2014.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
BMC Medical Research Methodology 2014.pdfFulltext - Published Version342.83 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.