Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: systematic reviews have been criticized for taking a narrow view of the available evidence on a given issue. Studies which have focused on evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention in an unbiased way may inadvertently privilege not just a particular methodological perspective, but also prioritize the perspective of trialists and intervention providers above those affected by the intervention.
It has been argued that, by including qualitative evidence, systematic reviews can address some of this bias and include a wider range of perspectives on a given problem in a systematic and methodologically robust way.
Objectives: now that a number of Cochrane Reviews that contain qualitative evidence has been published, or are in progress, we aimed to examine their methodological characteristics and the extent to which they do, indeed, enable a wider range of perspectives to contribute to a systematic review.
Methods: we identified the methodological characteristics of Cochrane Reviews and protocols which include (or plan to include) qualitative evidence, and summarized their key characteristics. We conducted a constant comparative analysis of their commonalities and differences in terms of their research questions, the populations included, and their methods of synthesis.
Results: 29 Cochrane Reviews and protocols now (or will) contain a qualitative evidence synthesis (QES). Of the 15 published reviews, seven integrated qualitative evidence with trials in the same review (‘convergent’ reviews), and eight are ‘stand alone’ reviews containing only qualitative evidence and accompany an existing intervention review.
The methods used to synthesize the qualitative evidence were mainly thematic analysis (7) and framework synthesis (5) with fewer reviews using narrative synthesis (2) or qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) (1). The qualitative research in the convergent reviews was mainly combined with the results from trials using logic models and the juxtaposition of findings and trial characteristics through the use of matrices.
In some reviews, the views and perspectives being sought were those of intervention providers or carers of those receiving intervention. Most reviews focused on the views and experiences of those directly affected by the interventions in question.
Conclusions: the incorporation of qualitative evidence has enhanced Cochrane Reviews in two ways. First, it has provided users of the review with additional understanding about the complexities of implementation and the acceptability, or otherwise, of interventions which may explain, for example, people’s willingness to adhere to treatment. Second, it has enabled review authors to understand possible causes of heterogeneity.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: the reviews each involved patients and/or healthcare consumers as appropriate, and this poster aims to highlight the importance of incorporating their – often diverse – perspectives in Cochrane Reviews through QES.
It has been argued that, by including qualitative evidence, systematic reviews can address some of this bias and include a wider range of perspectives on a given problem in a systematic and methodologically robust way.
Objectives: now that a number of Cochrane Reviews that contain qualitative evidence has been published, or are in progress, we aimed to examine their methodological characteristics and the extent to which they do, indeed, enable a wider range of perspectives to contribute to a systematic review.
Methods: we identified the methodological characteristics of Cochrane Reviews and protocols which include (or plan to include) qualitative evidence, and summarized their key characteristics. We conducted a constant comparative analysis of their commonalities and differences in terms of their research questions, the populations included, and their methods of synthesis.
Results: 29 Cochrane Reviews and protocols now (or will) contain a qualitative evidence synthesis (QES). Of the 15 published reviews, seven integrated qualitative evidence with trials in the same review (‘convergent’ reviews), and eight are ‘stand alone’ reviews containing only qualitative evidence and accompany an existing intervention review.
The methods used to synthesize the qualitative evidence were mainly thematic analysis (7) and framework synthesis (5) with fewer reviews using narrative synthesis (2) or qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) (1). The qualitative research in the convergent reviews was mainly combined with the results from trials using logic models and the juxtaposition of findings and trial characteristics through the use of matrices.
In some reviews, the views and perspectives being sought were those of intervention providers or carers of those receiving intervention. Most reviews focused on the views and experiences of those directly affected by the interventions in question.
Conclusions: the incorporation of qualitative evidence has enhanced Cochrane Reviews in two ways. First, it has provided users of the review with additional understanding about the complexities of implementation and the acceptability, or otherwise, of interventions which may explain, for example, people’s willingness to adhere to treatment. Second, it has enabled review authors to understand possible causes of heterogeneity.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: the reviews each involved patients and/or healthcare consumers as appropriate, and this poster aims to highlight the importance of incorporating their – often diverse – perspectives in Cochrane Reviews through QES.
PDF