scholarly journals Renegotiating dimensions of the self: A systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis of the lived experience of self‐managing rheumatoid arthritis

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 1388-1411
Author(s):  
Susie Donnelly ◽  
Molly Manning ◽  
Hasheem Mannan ◽  
Anthony G. Wilson ◽  
Thilo Kroll
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
The Self ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Qualitative Evidence

scholarly journals Study protocol of a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis using two different approaches: Healthcare related needs and desires of older people with post-stroke aphasia

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e039348
Author(s):  
Nadine Janis Pohontsch ◽  
Thorsten Meyer ◽  
Yvonne Eisenmann ◽  
Maria-Inti Metzendorf ◽  
Verena Leve ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older People ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Treatment Success ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Healthcare Needs ◽  
Qualitative Evidence

IntroductionStroke is a frequent disease in the older population of Western Europe with aphasia as a common consequence. Aphasia is known to impede targeting treatment to individual patients’ needs and therefore may reduce treatment success. In Germany, the postacute care of patients who had stroke is provided by different healthcare institutions of different sectors (rehabilitation, nursing and primary care) with substantial difficulties to coordinate services. We will conduct two qualitative evidence syntheses (QESs) aiming at exploring distinct healthcare needs and desires of older people living with poststroke aphasia. We thereby hope to support the development of integrated care models based on needs of patients who are very restricted to communicate them. Since various methods of QESs exist, the aim of the study embedding the two QESs was to determine if findings differ according to the approach used.Methods and analysisWe will conduct two QESs by using metaethnography (ME) and thematic synthesis (ThS) independently to synthesise the findings of primary qualitative studies. The main differences between these two methods are the underlying epistemologies (idealism (ME) vs realism (ThS)) and the type of research question (emerging (ME) vs fixed (ThS)).We will search seven bibliographical databases. Inclusion criteria comprise: patients with poststroke aphasia, aged 65 years and older, studies in German/English, all types of qualitative studies concerning needs and desires related to healthcare or the healthcare system. The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines and includes three items from the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the synthesis of Qualitative Research checklist.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented on national conferences.

scholarly journals The lived experience of people with obesity: study protocol for a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Farrell ◽  
Marta Bustillo ◽  
Carel W. le Roux ◽  
Joe Nadglowski ◽  
Eva Hollmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills ◽  
Health Complications

Abstract Background Obesity is a prevalent, complex, progressive and relapsing chronic disease characterised by abnormal or excessive body fat that impairs health and quality of life. It affects more than 650 million adults worldwide and is associated with a range of health complications. Qualitative research plays a key role in understanding patient experiences and the factors that facilitate or hinder the effectiveness of health interventions. This review aims to systematically locate, assess and synthesise qualitative studies in order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the lived experience of people with obesity. Methods This is a protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis of the lived experience of people with obesity. A defined search strategy will be employed in conducting a comprehensive literature search of the following databases: PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, PsycArticles and Dimensions (from 2011 onwards). Qualitative studies focusing on the lived experience of adults with obesity (BMI >30) will be included. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, abstracts and full-text articles and abstract data. The quality of included studies will be appraised using the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) criteria. Thematic synthesis will be conducted on all of the included studies. Confidence in the review findings will be assessed using GRADE CERQual. Discussion The findings from this synthesis will be used to inform the EU Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)-funded SOPHIA (Stratification of Obesity Phenotypes to Optimize Future Obesity Therapy) study. The objective of SOPHIA is to optimise future obesity treatment and stimulate a new narrative, understanding and vocabulary around obesity as a set of complex and chronic diseases. The findings will also be useful to health care providers and policy makers who seek to understand the experience of those with obesity. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020214560.

scholarly journals How do middle-aged and older adults with chronic hip pain view their health problem and its care? A protocol for a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. e053084
Author(s):  
Travis Haber ◽  
Rana S Hinman ◽  
Fiona Dobson ◽  
Samantha Bunzli ◽  
Michelle Hall
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Hip Pain ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Middle Aged ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionChronic hip pain in middle-aged and older adults is common and disabling. Patient-centred care of chronic hip pain requires a comprehensive understanding of how people with chronic hip pain view their health problem and its care. This paper outlines a protocol to synthesise qualitative evidence of middle-aged and older adults' views, beliefs, expectations and preferences about their chronic hip pain and its care.Methods and analysisWe will perform a qualitative evidence synthesis using a framework approach. We will conduct this study in accord with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the synthesis of Qualitative research checklist. We will search MEDLINE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE and PsycINFO using a comprehensive search strategy. A priori selection criteria include qualitative studies involving samples with a mean age over 45 and where 80% or more have chronic hip pain. Two or more reviewers will independently screen studies for eligibility, assess methodological strengths and limitations using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative studies checklist, perform data extraction and synthesis and determine ratings of confidence in each review finding using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation—Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach. Data extraction and synthesis will be guided by the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation. All authors will contribute to interpreting, refining and finalising review findings. This protocol is registered on PROSPERO and reported according to the PRISMA Statement for Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this systematic review as primary data will not be collected. The findings of the review will be disseminated through publication in an academic journal and scientific conferences.PROSPERO registration numberPROSPERO registration number: CRD42021246305.

scholarly journals Nurses’ Experience of Caring for Patients with Delirium: Systematic Review and Qualitative Evidence Synthesis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 164-174
Author(s):  
Nissy Thomas ◽  
Mardhie Coleman ◽  
Daniel Terry
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Early Recognition ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Conscious State ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Theoretical Understanding ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Knowledge Deficit ◽  
Methodological Assessment

Delirium is an acute deterioration in attention, conscious state, perception, and cognition of a person. While nurses possess the theoretical understanding of the condition, they lack insight into its early recognition and management. This systematic review aims to understand what factors influence nurses as they care for patients with delirium, and to identify best practices to improve overall clinical care. The Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES), as a strategy process to identify gaps in research, formulate new models or strategies for care, underpinned the review. In addition to specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, a methodological assessment, data were analysed using QES, as informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute Review process. Ten studies were identified and synthesised to generate four key themes. The themes included (1) nurse’s knowledge deficit; (2) increased workload and stress; (3) safety concerns among nurse when caring for patients with delirium; and (4) strategies used when caring for patients with delirium. Overall, the review has highlighted the need for increased delirium education and coping strategies among nurses to effectively care for patients with delirium. This may be augmented through regular education sessions to provide nurses with the confidence and competence to care for the acutely confused person.

scholarly journals Can a Meta-ethnography Be Updated by Different Reviewers? Reflections From a Recent Update

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 160940692110464
Author(s):  
Evi Germeni ◽  
Ruth Garside ◽  
Julia Frost ◽  
Morwenna Rogers ◽  
Nicky Britten
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experience ◽  
Original Work ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Methodological Issues ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
The One ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Hard Place

Over the last decade, there has been a proliferation of published meta-ethnographies. Yet, strategies and techniques for updating have not received the same attention, rendering answers to important methodological questions still elusive. One such question has to do with who can perform an update. Although it is not uncommon for quantitative systematic reviews and statistical meta-analyses to be updated by different reviewers, qualitative synthesists might find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, as meta-ethnography constitutes an interpretation three times removed from the lived experience of the participants in the original studies, it could be argued that an update by different reviewers might add an extra layer of interpretation. By comparison, updating by the same reviewers could give rise to concerns about the robustness of updated findings, as an implicit drive for making new data fit the original work might be difficult to control for. We recently reported the findings of our attempt to update an earlier meta-ethnography of primary care antibiotic prescribing, conducted by a different team of reviewers. In this article, we wish to contribute to the emerging debate on the necessity of promoting a culture of updating in qualitative evidence synthesis, by discussing some of the practical and methodological issues we considered at each stage of the process and offering lessons learnt from our experience.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document