Advances in Quality Evaluation and Transformation of Evidence from Qualitative Research_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

 JINYing-hui ¹ , GAOWei-jie ¹ , LIYan ¹ ,  SHANGHong-cai ² , XIEYu-lu ¹ , SUNWen-xi ¹ , WEIHong-yue ¹ , TANGQi ¹

1. Nursing School, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin 300193, China;
2. Key Laboratory of Chinese Internal Medicine of Ministry of Education, Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100700, China;

Corresponding?author：

SHANGHong-cai, Email: shanghongcai@foxmail.com

Keywords：

Qualitative research; Meta-synthesis; Evidence-based transformation

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.20150237

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Qualitative research can provide interpretations of patients on experience, attitudes, beliefs and psychological changes of disease nursing, so it reflects the scientificity, humanity and ethicality of nursing science. How to assess and integrate findings derived from qualitative researches and use them in decision making is a key issue for researchers. This paper introduced how to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of qualitative research, perform qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis, and evaluate the quality of evidence of meta-syntheses using the ConQual tool.

Citation： JINYing-hui, GAOWei-jie, LIYan, SHANGHong-cai, XIEYu-lu, SUNWen-xi, WEIHong-yue, TANGQi. Advances in Quality Evaluation and Transformation of Evidence from Qualitative Research. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2015, 15(12): 1458-1464. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20150237 Copy

1.	劉明. 護理質性研究. 北京:人民衛生出版社, 2008:1-22.
2.	陳向明. 質性研究方法與社會科學研究. 北京:教育科學出版社. 2000:12.
3.	王新田, 候婕, 楊克虎. 護理質性研究對循證護理的影響探討. 護理學報, 2011, 5:46-48.
4.	李澤楷. 護理學研究生質性研究能力培養的必要性及課程設置. 中華護理教育, 2012, 9(2):65-66.
5.	劉巍, 劉玉錦. 量性研究和質性研究在護理研究中的綜合運用. 吉林醫學, 2008, 29(14):1147-1148.
6.	胡雁. 循證護理學. 北京:人民衛生出版社, 2012:88-89.
7.	IOM (Institute of Medicine). Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC:The National Academies Press, 2011.
8.	Guba, EG. The Paradigm Dialog. London:Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications, 1990.
9.	Public Health Resource Unit. (2006). Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). England Public Health Resource Unit. Available at:http://www.casp-uk.net/#!casp-tools-checklists/.
10.	Dixon-Woods M, Shaw RL, Agarwal S, et al. The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Saf Health Care, 2004, 13(3): 223-225.
11.	Knowles SE, Toms G, Sanders C, et al. Qualitative Meta-Synthesis of User Experience of Computerised Therapy for Depression and Anxiety. Harris F, ed. PLoS ONE, 2014, 9(1):e84323.
12.	Toye F, Seers K, Allcock N, et al. Meta-ethnography 25 years on: challenges and insights for synthesising a large number of qualitative studies. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2014, 14:80.
13.	Allison Tong. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ):a 32-itm checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care, 2007, 19(6):349-357.
14.	Prorok JC, Horgan S, Seitz DP. Health care experiences of people with dementia and their caregivers:a meta-ethnographic analysis of qualitative studies. CMAJ. 2013, 185(14):E669-E680.
15.	費宇彤, 劉建平, 于河, 等. 報告質性研究個體訪談和焦點組訪談統一標準的介紹. 中西醫結合學報, 2008, 6(2):115-118.
16.	王媛媛, 靳英輝,陳興, 等. 2004-2013年國內護理領域個體和焦點小組訪談研究論文的報告學質量評價. 中國實用護理雜志, 2015, 31(2):113-118.
17.	袁浩斌. 循證護理中質性研究的Meta-整合方法. 護理學雜志, 2012, 27(21):67-69.
18.	Walsh D, Downe S. Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. J Adv Nurs, 2005, 50(2):204-211.
19.	Pearson A. Balancing the evidence:incorporating the synthesis of qualitative data into systematic reviews. JBI Reports, 2004, 2(2):45-64.
20.	The Joanna Briggs Institute:Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual. Adelaide:The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2011.
21.	Prorok JC, Horgan S, Seitz DP. Health care experiences of people with dementia and their caregivers:a meta-ethnographic analysis of qualitative studies. CMAJ, 2013, 185(14):E669-E680.
22.	Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York:Springer, 2007.
23.	Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography:Synthesizing qualitative studies. London:Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications, 1988.
24.	Galdas P, Darwin Z, Kidd L, et al. The accessibility and acceptability of self-management support interventions for men with long term conditions:a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. BMC Public Health, 2014, 14:1230.
25.	May CR, Masters J, Welch L, et al. EXPERTS 1-experiences of long-term life-limiting conditions among patients and carers: protocol for a qualitative meta-synthesis and conceptual modelling study. BMJ Open, 2015, 5(4):e007372.
26.	Hannes K, Macaitis K. A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis:update on a review of published papers. Qual Res, 2012, 12(4):402-442.
27.	Campbell R, Pound P, Morgan M, et al. Evaluating metaethnography:Systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technol Assess, 2011, 15(43):1-164.
28.	Trevillion K, Hughes B, Feder G, et al. Disclosure of domestic violence in mental health settings:A qualitative meta-synthesis. Int Rev Psychiatry, 2014, 26(4):430-444.
29.	Atkins S, Lewin S, Smith H, et al. Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature:Lessons learnt. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2008, 8:21.
30.	Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ, 2008, 336(7651):995-998.
31.	Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE:證據質量和推薦強度分級的共識. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2009, 9(10):8-11.
32.	Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, 2004, 328(7454):1490.
33.	Lewin S, Glenton C, Noyes J, et al. CerQual approach:Assessing how much certainty to place in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses. Quebec, Canada:21st Cochrane Colloquium, 2013.
34.	Macaitis K. The systematic review of evidence generated by qualitative research, narrative and text. Adelaide:The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2009.
35.	Munn Z, Porritt K, Lockwood C, et al. Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis:the ConQual approach. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2014, 14:108.

1. 劉明. 護理質性研究. 北京:人民衛生出版社, 2008:1-22.
2. 陳向明. 質性研究方法與社會科學研究. 北京:教育科學出版社. 2000:12.
3. 王新田, 候婕, 楊克虎. 護理質性研究對循證護理的影響探討. 護理學報, 2011, 5:46-48.
4. 李澤楷. 護理學研究生質性研究能力培養的必要性及課程設置. 中華護理教育, 2012, 9(2):65-66.
5. 劉巍, 劉玉錦. 量性研究和質性研究在護理研究中的綜合運用. 吉林醫學, 2008, 29(14):1147-1148.
6. 胡雁. 循證護理學. 北京:人民衛生出版社, 2012:88-89.
7. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC:The National Academies Press, 2011.
8. Guba, EG. The Paradigm Dialog. London:Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications, 1990.
9. Public Health Resource Unit. (2006). Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). England Public Health Resource Unit. Available at:http://www.casp-uk.net/#!casp-tools-checklists/.
10. Dixon-Woods M, Shaw RL, Agarwal S, et al. The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Saf Health Care, 2004, 13(3): 223-225.
11. Knowles SE, Toms G, Sanders C, et al. Qualitative Meta-Synthesis of User Experience of Computerised Therapy for Depression and Anxiety. Harris F, ed. PLoS ONE, 2014, 9(1):e84323.
12. Toye F, Seers K, Allcock N, et al. Meta-ethnography 25 years on: challenges and insights for synthesising a large number of qualitative studies. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2014, 14:80.
13. Allison Tong. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ):a 32-itm checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care, 2007, 19(6):349-357.
14. Prorok JC, Horgan S, Seitz DP. Health care experiences of people with dementia and their caregivers:a meta-ethnographic analysis of qualitative studies. CMAJ. 2013, 185(14):E669-E680.
15. 費宇彤, 劉建平, 于河, 等. 報告質性研究個體訪談和焦點組訪談統一標準的介紹. 中西醫結合學報, 2008, 6(2):115-118.
16. 王媛媛, 靳英輝,陳興, 等. 2004-2013年國內護理領域個體和焦點小組訪談研究論文的報告學質量評價. 中國實用護理雜志, 2015, 31(2):113-118.
17. 袁浩斌. 循證護理中質性研究的Meta-整合方法. 護理學雜志, 2012, 27(21):67-69.
18. Walsh D, Downe S. Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. J Adv Nurs, 2005, 50(2):204-211.
19. Pearson A. Balancing the evidence:incorporating the synthesis of qualitative data into systematic reviews. JBI Reports, 2004, 2(2):45-64.
20. The Joanna Briggs Institute:Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual. Adelaide:The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2011.
21. Prorok JC, Horgan S, Seitz DP. Health care experiences of people with dementia and their caregivers:a meta-ethnographic analysis of qualitative studies. CMAJ, 2013, 185(14):E669-E680.
22. Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York:Springer, 2007.
23. Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography:Synthesizing qualitative studies. London:Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications, 1988.
24. Galdas P, Darwin Z, Kidd L, et al. The accessibility and acceptability of self-management support interventions for men with long term conditions:a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. BMC Public Health, 2014, 14:1230.
25. May CR, Masters J, Welch L, et al. EXPERTS 1-experiences of long-term life-limiting conditions among patients and carers: protocol for a qualitative meta-synthesis and conceptual modelling study. BMJ Open, 2015, 5(4):e007372.
26. Hannes K, Macaitis K. A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis:update on a review of published papers. Qual Res, 2012, 12(4):402-442.
27. Campbell R, Pound P, Morgan M, et al. Evaluating metaethnography:Systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technol Assess, 2011, 15(43):1-164.
28. Trevillion K, Hughes B, Feder G, et al. Disclosure of domestic violence in mental health settings:A qualitative meta-synthesis. Int Rev Psychiatry, 2014, 26(4):430-444.
29. Atkins S, Lewin S, Smith H, et al. Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature:Lessons learnt. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2008, 8:21.
30. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ, 2008, 336(7651):995-998.
31. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE:證據質量和推薦強度分級的共識. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2009, 9(10):8-11.
32. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, 2004, 328(7454):1490.
33. Lewin S, Glenton C, Noyes J, et al. CerQual approach:Assessing how much certainty to place in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses. Quebec, Canada:21st Cochrane Colloquium, 2013.
34. Macaitis K. The systematic review of evidence generated by qualitative research, narrative and text. Adelaide:The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2009.
35. Munn Z, Porritt K, Lockwood C, et al. Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis:the ConQual approach. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2014, 14:108.

Previous Article
ROBIS: A New Tool to Assess Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews
Next Article
An Introduction of Quality Classification Tool for Qualitative Evidence—CERQual

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Advances in Quality Evaluation and Transformation of Evidence from Qualitative Research

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content