School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2011 Dec;15(43):1-164. doi: 10.3310/hta15430.
Methods for reviewing and synthesising findings from quantitative research studies in health care are well established. Although there is recognition of the need for qualitative research to be brought into the evidence base, there is no consensus about how this should be done and the methods for synthesising qualitative research are at a relatively early stage of development.
To evaluate meta-ethnography as a method for synthesising qualitative research studies in health and health care.
Two full syntheses of qualitative research studies were conducted between April 2002 and September 2004 using meta-ethnography: (1) studies of medicine-taking and (2) studies exploring patients' experiences of living with rheumatoid arthritis. Potentially relevant studies identified in multiple literature searches conducted in July and August 2002 (electronically and by hand) were appraised using a modified version of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme questions for understanding qualitative research. Candidate papers were excluded on grounds of lack of relevance to the aims of the synthesis or because the work failed to employ qualitative methods of data collection and analysis.
Thirty-eight studies were entered into the medicine-taking synthesis, one of which did not contribute to the final synthesis. The synthesis revealed a general caution about taking medicine, and that the practice of lay testing of medicines was widespread. People were found to take their medicine passively or actively or to reject it outright. Some, in particular clinical areas, were coerced into taking it. Those who actively accepted their medicine often modified the regimen prescribed by a doctor, without the doctor's knowledge. The synthesis concluded that people often do not take their medicines as prescribed because of concern about the medicines themselves. 'Resistance' emerged from the synthesis as a concept that best encapsulated the lay response to prescribed medicines. It was suggested that a policy focus should be on the problems associated with the medicines themselves and on evaluating the effectiveness of alternative treatments that some people use in preference to prescribed medicines. The synthesis of studies of lay experiences of living with rheumatoid arthritis began with 29 papers. Four could not be synthesised, leaving 25 papers (describing 22 studies) contributing to the final synthesis. Most of the papers were concerned with the everyday experience of living with rheumatoid arthritis. This synthesis did not produce significant new insights, probably because the early papers in the area were substantial and theoretically rich, and later papers were mostly confirmatory. In both topic areas, only a minority of the studies included in the syntheses were found to have referenced each other, suggesting that unnecessary replication had occurred.
We only evaluated meta-ethnography as a method for synthesising qualitative research, but there are other methods being employed. Further research is required to investigate how different methods of qualitative synthesis influence the outcome of the synthesis.
Meta-ethnography is an effective method for synthesising qualitative research. The process of reciprocally translating the findings from each individual study into those from all the other studies in the synthesis, if applied rigorously, ensures that qualitative data can be combined. Following this essential process, the synthesis can then be expressed as a 'line of argument' that can be presented as text and in summary tables and diagrams or models. Meta-ethnography can produce significant new insights, but not all meta-ethnographic syntheses do so. Instead, some will identify fields in which saturation has been reached and in which no theoretical development has taken place for some time. Both outcomes are helpful in either moving research forward or avoiding wasted resources. Meta-ethnography is a highly interpretative method requiring considerable immersion in the individual studies to achieve a synthesis. It places substantial demands upon the synthesiser and requires a high degree of qualitative research skill. Meta-ethnography has great potential as a method of synthesis in qualitative health technology assessment but it is still evolving and cannot, at present, be regarded as a standardised approach capable of application in a routinised way.
Funding for this study was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research.
用于审查和综合医疗保健定量研究结果的方法已经成熟。尽管人们认识到需要将定性研究纳入证据基础,但对于应该如何进行这一工作,以及综合定性研究的方法仍存在共识,并且综合定性研究的方法还处于相对早期的发展阶段。
评估元民族志作为综合健康和医疗保健定性研究的方法。
2002 年 4 月至 2004 年 9 月期间,使用元民族志进行了两次定性研究的综合研究:(1)药物使用研究,(2)探索患者类风湿关节炎生活体验的研究。在 2002 年 7 月和 8 月进行的多次文献检索中确定了潜在相关的研究(电子和手动),使用理解定性研究的批判性评估技能计划问题的修改版本对其进行评估。候选论文因与综合目的不相关或因工作未采用定性数据收集和分析方法而被排除。
有 38 项研究纳入药物使用综合研究,其中一项对最终综合没有贡献。综合研究揭示了人们对服用药物的普遍谨慎态度,以及广泛存在的非专业人士测试药物的做法。人们发现自己被动或主动地服用药物,或者干脆拒绝服用药物。在某些情况下,特别是在临床领域,人们被迫服用药物。那些积极接受自己药物的人经常在不告知医生的情况下修改医生开的处方。综合研究得出的结论是,人们经常不按照医嘱服用药物,因为担心药物本身。“抵抗”是从综合研究中产生的一个概念,它最好地概括了非专业人士对规定药物的反应。这表明,政策重点应该放在与药物本身相关的问题上,并评估一些人更倾向于使用的替代治疗方法的有效性,而不是规定的药物。对非专业人士类风湿关节炎生活体验的研究综合研究开始时有 29 篇论文。其中 4 篇无法进行综合研究,留下 25 篇论文(描述了 22 项研究)为最终综合研究做出了贡献。大多数论文都涉及日常生活中与类风湿关节炎的抗争。这一综合研究没有产生重大的新见解,可能是因为该领域早期的论文篇幅大,理论丰富,而后来的论文大多是确认性的。在这两个主题领域中,综合研究中只有少数研究相互引用,这表明存在不必要的重复。
我们仅评估了元民族志作为综合定性研究的方法,但还有其他方法正在使用。需要进一步研究不同的定性综合方法如何影响综合的结果。
元民族志是综合定性研究的有效方法。如果严格应用,将每个单独研究的发现相互转化为综合研究中所有其他研究的发现的过程,确保可以结合定性数据。在遵循这一基本过程之后,综合研究可以用“论点线”的形式呈现,以文本和总结表、图表或模型的形式呈现。元民族志可以产生重大的新见解,但并非所有的元民族学综合研究都如此。相反,有些研究领域已经达到了饱和状态,而且已经有一段时间没有理论上的发展了。这两种结果都有助于推动研究前进或避免浪费资源。元民族志是一种高度解释性的方法,需要对单个研究进行大量的投入,以实现综合研究。它对综合者提出了巨大的要求,并需要高度的定性研究技能。元民族志作为定性健康技术评估综合方法具有巨大的潜力,但它仍在发展中,目前不能被视为一种标准化的方法,能够以常规的方式应用。
本研究由英国国家卫生研究院卫生技术评估计划提供资金。