Beyond PICO

Qualitative Health Research - Tập 22 Số 10 - Trang 1435-1443 - 2012
Alison Cooke1, Debbie Smith2, Andrew Booth3
1Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom. [email protected]
22University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
33School of Health and Related Research, Sheffield, United Kingdom

Tóm tắt

Standardized systematic search strategies facilitate rigor in research. Current search tools focus on retrieval of quantitative research. In this article we address issues relating to using existing search strategy tools, most typically the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) formulation for defining key elements of a review question, when searching for qualitative and mixed methods research studies. An alternative search strategy tool for qualitative/mixed methods research is outlined: SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type). We used both the SPIDER and PICO search strategy tools with a qualitative research question. We have used the SPIDER tool to advance thinking beyond PICO in its suitable application to qualitative and mixed methods research. However, we have highlighted once more the need for improved indexing of qualitative articles in databases. To constitute a viable alternative to PICO, SPIDER needs to be refined and tested on a wider range of topics.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.12968/bjom.2004.12.11.16691

10.1177/1049732303253331

10.1186/1471-2288-9-59

10.1177/0193945902250034

10.1108/eb024320

Booth A. (2001, May). Cochrane or cock-eyed? How should we conduct systematic reviews of qualitative research? Paper presented at the Qualitative Evidence-Based Practice Conference, Taking a Critical Stance, Coventry, UK. Retrieved from www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001724.htm

10.1108/07378830610692127

Booth A. (2011). Chapter 3: Searching for studies. In Noyes J., Booth A., Hannes K., Harden A., Harris J., Lewin S., Lockwood C. (Eds.), Supplementary guidance for inclusion of qualitative research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 1. Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group. Retrieved from http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance

Booth A., 2000, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 88, 239

10.1624/105812405X44691

Carroll C., Booth A., Cooper K. (2011). A worked example of “best fit” framework synthesis: A systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 29-37. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/29

10.1136/bmj.309.6960.1007

10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.001

Cooper H. M., 1998, Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews, 3

10.1016/j.jpag.2005.03.003

10.1177/0170840607088020

10.1136/bmj.309.6964.1286

10.1177/1468794106058867

10.1186/1471-2288-6-35

Evans D., 2002, Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90, 290

Grayson L., Gomersall A. (2003). A difficult business: Finding the evidence for social science reviews. London, UK: ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice. Retrieved from http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/cep/pubs/papers/assets/wp19.pdf

10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05636.x

Holloway I., 2002, Qualitative research in nursing, 2

Howie L., 2005, Royal College Midwives, 8, 304

Lefebvre C., Manheimer E., Glanville J. (2008). Searching for studies. In Higgins J. P. T., Green S. (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Retrieved from www.cochrane-handbook.org

10.1111/ j.1365-2648.2004.03196

10.1002/9780470692127.ch6

10.1177/0163278706293400

10.1177/1744987110381696

10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04092

Noyes J., Popay J., Pearson A., Hannes K., Booth A. (2011). Qualitative research and Cochrane reviews. In Higgins J. P. T., Green S. (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Retrieved from www.cochrane-handbook.org

O’Connor D., Green S., Higgins J. P. T. (2008). Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies. In Higgins J. P. T., Green S. (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Retrieved from www.cochrane-handbook.org

10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00863

Sandelowski M., 2007, Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research

10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199708)20:4<365::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-E

10.1186/

10.1186/1471-2288-4-5

10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02924

10.12968/bjom.2009.17.10.44461

10.1177/1049732304269888

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.007

10.1186/1472-6947-1-4

10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03380

10.1177/1049732305284027

10.1177/1049732306294515

10.1046/j.1471-1842.2002.00378.x

Wong S. S., 2004, MEDINFO, 11, 311

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Qualitative Health Research

Tập 22 Số 10

1435-1443

Thông tin tác giả