Appraising Qualitative Research for Evidence Syntheses: A Compendium of Quality Appraisal Tools

Qualitative Health Research - Tập 28 Số 13 - Trang 2115-2131 - 2018
Umair Majid1, Meredith Vanstone1
1McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Tóm tắt

As the movement toward evidence-based health policy continues to emphasize the importance of including patient and public perspectives, syntheses of qualitative health research are becoming more common. In response to the focus on independent assessments of rigor in these knowledge products, over 100 appraisal tools for assessing the quality of qualitative research have been developed. The variety of appraisal tools exhibit diverse methods and purposes, reflecting the lack of consensus as to what constitutes appropriate quality criteria for qualitative research. It is a daunting task for those without deep familiarity of the field to choose the best appraisal tool for their purpose. This article provides a description of the structure, content, and objectives of existing appraisal tools for those wanting to evaluate primary qualitative research for a qualitative evidence synthesis. We then discuss common features of appraisal tools and examine their implications for evidence synthesis.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115

10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00371.x

Barnett-Page E., Thomas J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC medical research methodology, 9(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-59

10.1177/1049732302238753

10.1002/9781118715598.ch21

10.1186/s12913-015-1174-8

10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00064-3

10.1136/bmj.j80

10.1002/jrsm.1128

10.1177/1049732312452937

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. (2016). CASP qualitative research checklist [online]. Retrieved from http://www.casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists

10.1177/1468794108098034

10.1177/1468794107078517

10.1136/qshc.2003.008714

10.1258/135581907779497486

Downe S., 2008, Evidence Based Midwifery, 6, 4

10.1177/104973239400400410

10.1177/146879410200200205

Finfgeld D. L. (2003). Metasynthesis: The state of the art—so far. Qualitative health research, 13(7), 893-904. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732303253462

First Nations Governance Centre. (2014). Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (OCAP TM): The path to first nations information governance. Ottawa: First Nations Information Governance Centre. Retrieved from http://fnigc.ca/sites/default/files/docs/ocap_path_to_fn_information_governance_en_final.pdf

10.1080/13511610.2013.777270

Gentles S. J., Jack S. M., Nicholas D. B., McKibbon K. (2014). Critical approach to reflexivity in grounded theory. The Qualitative Report, 19(44), 1–14. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss44/3

10.1001/jama.284.3.357

10.1136/jech.2006.046110

10.1177/1049732310378656

10.1177/1468794111432992

10.1177/104973239600600407

Joanna Briggs Institute. (2016). Checklist for qualitative research [online]. Retrieved from http://joannabriggs.org/research/critical-appraisal-tools.html

Kandasamy S., 2017, Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series, 17, 1

10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00725.x

10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3

10.1371/journal.pmed.1001895

10.1097/XEB.0000000000000062

10.1080/1364557032000045302

Majid U., HPV testing for primary cervical cancer screening: A health technology assessment

10.1111/j.1600-0528.2010.00584.x

10.1111/j.1744-1609.2008.00104.x

10.4135/9781446268247.n29

10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Noblit G. W., Hare R. D., Hare R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies Particularities: Collected Essay on Ethnography and Education 44, 93-123. USA: Sage Publications.

10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04092.x

10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388

10.1177/104973239800800305

Sandelowski M., Barroso J. (2002). Finding the findings in qualitative studies. Journal of nursing scholarship, 34(3), 213-219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2002.00213.x

10.1097/00006199-200307000-00004

Sandelowski M., Barroso J., Voils C. I. (2007). Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings. Research in nursing & health, 30(1), 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20176

10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195387216.001.0001

10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G

Sandelowski M., 2006, Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research

10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.007

Spencer L., 2003, Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence

10.1177/1049732309348501

10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

10.1177/1049732316679370

10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

10.1111/mcn.12374

10.1016/j.midw.2005.05.004

10.1186/s13643-017-0604-6

Yardley L., 2008, Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods, 2, 235

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Qualitative Health Research

Tập 28 Số 13

2115-2131

Thông tin tác giả