Synthesising qualitative and quantitative

A data extraction form and quality assessment criteria were developed from published resources. Aims This paper describes the review methods developed and the difficulties encountered during the process of updating a systematic review of evidence to inform guidelines for the content of patient information related to cervical screening.

The main purpose of the review was to identify important information for inclusion in the screening programme letters and leaflets introductory, abnormal result and colposcopy.

The full updated guidelines are described elsewhere. In this paper we provide a brief overview and critique of a selection of strategies for synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence, ranging from techniques that are largely qualitative and interpretive through to techniques that are largely quantitative and integrative.

The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was then assessed using an approach published by the GRADE working group, which was adapted to suit the review questions and modified to include qualitative research evidence. Methods vary in their strengths and weaknesses, ability to deal with qualitative and quantitative forms of evidence, and type of question for which they are most suitable.

The limitations of traditional forms of systematic review in making optimal use of all forms of evidence are increasingly evident, especially for policy-makers and practitioners.

Quantitative and qualitative studies were considered separately for every outcome. There is an urgent need for robust ways of incorporating qualitative evidence into systematic reviews. For each key information point, a tabular summary was created of the relevant evidence.

We identify a number of procedural, conceptual and theoretical issues that need to be addressed in moving forward with this area, and emphasise the need for existing techniques to be evaluated and modified, rather than inventing new approaches.

The inclusion of qualitative research, which was often highly relevant and specific to many components of the screening information materials, enabled the production of a set of recommendations that will directly affect policy within the NHS Cervical Screening Programme.

Methods Systematic searches of 12 electronic databases January to July were conducted.

Synthesising quantitative and qualitative research in evidence‐based patient information

The reviewers were experienced in conducting quantitative and qualitative research related to cancer screening and patient and health professional information. Figure 1 The review process including a selection of the review recommendations.

Conclusions A practical example is provided of how quantitative and qualitative data sources might successfully be brought together and considered in one review. A range of methods is available for synthesising diverse forms of evidence.

What is the existing research evidence base regarding the content of the written information sent to women at all stages of the cervical screening process? This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract Background Systematic reviews have, in the past, focused on quantitative studies and clinical effectiveness, while excluding qualitative evidence.

The review questions were best answered by evidence from a range of data sources. The focus of the review was directed and informed by two main questions: Important information included facts length of the screening intervalconcepts purpose of the screening test and general points suitable attire.

Synthesising quantitative and qualitative research in a single review is an important methodological challenge.

Synthesising Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence within a Systematic Review

Results 32 papers were included in the systematic review following data extraction and assessment of methodological quality. What are the information needs of women during cervical screening?This book provides a comprehensive overview of the range of approaches and methods available for synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence and a detailed explanation of why this is important.

Synthesising quantitative and qualitative research in a single review is an important methodological challenge.

Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods.

Aims: This paper describes the review methods developed and the difficulties encountered during the process of updating a systematic review of evidence to inform guidelines for the content of patient information related to cervical. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence Mary Dixon-Woods Department of Health Sciences University of Leicester.

How can reviews accommodate diversity of • Aim is the generation of a synthesising argument – A theory • Sampling involves constant dialectic process concurrently with theory generation; highly iterative.

Synthesising qualitative About the combining qualitative studies continues, and more specifically whether different types of ch, based on different theoretical assumptions and methods combined.

Please try 're listening to a sample of the audible audio sising qualitative and quantitative health evidence: a guide to methods: a guide to all.

synthesising evidence of different types (qualitative, quantitative, economic etc). Typically, study characteristics, context, quality and findings are reported on according to a standard format and similarities and differences are compared.

Lucas et al comment that it has proved useful in synthesising evidence of different types (qualitative, quantitative, economic etc). Typically, study characteristics, context, quality and findings are reported on according to a standard format and similarities and differences are compared across studies.

Download
Synthesising qualitative and quantitative
Rated 4/5 based on 79 review