Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Qualitative Evidence Syntheses, Differences From Reviews of Intervention Effectiveness and Implications for Guidance

Author:

Glenton Claire1ORCID,Lewin Simon12ORCID,Downe Soo3ORCID,Paulsen Elizabeth1,Munabi-Babigumira Susan1ORCID,Agarwal Smisha4ORCID,Ames Heather1,Cooper Sara2ORCID,Daniels Karen2,Houghton Catherine5ORCID,Karimi‐Shahanjarini Akram6,Moloi Hlengiwe2,Odendaal Willem32ORCID,Shakibazadeh Elham7,Vasudevan Lavanya8ORCID,Xyrichis Andreas9ORCID,Bohren Meghan A.10ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway

2. South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, South Africa

3. University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK

4. Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

5. National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

6. Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran

7. Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

8. Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

9. King's College London, London, UK

10. Gender and Women’s Health Unit, Centre for Health Equity, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Abstract

Systematic reviews of qualitative research (‘qualitative evidence syntheses’) are increasingly popular and represent a potentially important source of information about people’s views, needs and experiences. Since 2013, Cochrane has published qualitative evidence syntheses, and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group has been involved in the majority of these reviews. But more guidance is needed on how to prepare these reviews in an environment that is more familiar with reviews of quantitative research. In this paper, we describe and reflect on how Cochrane qualitative evidence syntheses differ from reviews of intervention effectiveness and how these differences have influenced the guidance developed by the EPOC group. In particular, we discuss how it has been important to display to end users, firstly, that qualitative evidence syntheses are carried out with rigour and transparency, and secondly, that these quality standards need to reflect qualitative research traditions. We also discuss lessons that reviews of effectiveness might learn from qualitative research.

Funder

The Norwegian Institute of Public Health

Norwegian Agency for Development Co-operation

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Education

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3