How can the impacts of dissemination bias in qualitative research be detected in the context of qualitative evidence syntheses? Identifying new approaches 

Article type
Authors
Lewin S1, Munthe-Kaas H2, Toews I3, Noyes J4, Meerpohl J3, Pardo-Hernandez H5
1Cochrane EPOC, Cochrane Norway, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, South African Medical Research Council
2Norwegian Institute of Public Health
3Cochrane Germany
4Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group
5Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre
Abstract
Objectives:

To discuss how the impacts of dissemination bias in qualitative research might be detected in the context of qualitative evidence syntheses. To explore how approaches for detecting these impacts might be tested.Description:
Dissemination bias (also called publication bias) in qualitative research – previously defined as “a systematic distortion of the phenomenon of interest due to selective dissemination of qualitative studies or the findings of qualitative studies” – has received little research attention. To date, we have limited knowledge on how dissemination bias might impact on qualitative evidence syntheses and on the assessment of confidence in synthesis findings. We also know little about how to detect the impacts of such dissemination bias. In this session, we will brainstorm approaches for doing this and discuss how these might be tested in the context of qualitative evidence syntheses.

Seminar structure:

Input 1 (15 mins): Presentation of current ‘state of the art’ regarding dissemination bias in qualitative research and its relevance for qualitative evidence syntheses.Small group discussion 1 (20 mins): Participants brainstorm ways of detecting the impacts of dissemination bias in qualitative research.Plenary 1 (20 mins): Feedback on and discussion of the approaches discussed, including their feasibility in the context of qualitative evidence syntheses. Small group discussion 2 (15 mins): Participants discuss how approaches for detecting the impacts of dissemination bias might be tested in order to develop an empirical knowledge base in this field. Plenary 2 (20 mins): Feedback and discussion on potential further methodological work in this area.