Reviews of qualitative evidence: a new milestone for Cochrane

A systematic review of qualitative literature on antimicrobial stewardship in Sub-Saharan Africa

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic resistance is a major problem in every region of the globe and Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is no exception. Several systematic reviews have addressed the prevalence of resistant organisms but few have examined the underlying causes in this region. This systematic review of qualitative literature aims to highlight barriers and facilitators to antimicrobial stewardship in SSA.

METHODS

A literature search of Embase and MEDLINE(R) was carried out. Studies were included if they were in English, conducted in SSA, and reported qualitative data on the barriers and facilitators of antimicrobial stewardship or on attitudes towards resistance promoting behaviours. Studies were screened with a simple critical appraisal tool. Secondary constructs were extracted and coded into concepts, which were then reviewed and grouped into themes in light of the complete dataset.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 169 results, of which 14 studies from 11 countries were included in the final analysis. No studies were excluded as a result of the critical appraisal. Eight concepts emerged from initial coding, which were consolidated into five major themes: ineffective regulation, health system factors, clinical governance, patient factors and lack of resources. The ineffective regulation theme highlighted the balance between tightening drugstore regulation, reducing over-the-counter sale of antibiotics, and maintaining access to medicines for rural communities. Meanwhile, health system factors explored the tension between antimicrobial stewardship and the need of pharmacy workers to maintain profitable businesses. Additionally, a lack of resources, actions by patients and the day-to-day challenges of providing healthcare were shown to directly impede antimicrobial stewardship and exacerbate other factors which promote resistance.

CONCLUSION

Antibiotic resistance in SSA is a multi-faceted issue and while limited resources contribute to the problem they should be viewed in the context of other factors. We identify several contextual factors that affect resistance and stewardship that should be considered by policy makers when planning interventions. This literature base is also incomplete, with only 11 nations accounted for and many studies being confined to regions within countries, so more research is needed. Specifically, further studies on implementing stewardship interventions, successful or not, would be beneficial to inform future efforts.

Barriers and facilitators of disclosing domestic violence to the healthcare service: A systematic review of qualitative research

Domestic violence victims are in frequent contact with the healthcare service yet rarely disclose. Therefore, it is critical to understand victims' experiences and perceptions regarding disclosure in healthcare settings. The goal of this review is to provide an updated synthesis of qualitative research identifying barriers and facilitators, advice, and positive and negative outcomes of adult victims' disclosure of domestic violence to healthcare professionals (HCPs). A systematic search of PsychINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science was conducted in January 2018. Thirty-four eligible studies were identified, including 783 domestic violence victims (781 females). Formal quality assessment indicated variable study quality. Barriers of disclosure included negative HCPs attitudes, victims' perceptions of safety and concerns about the consequences of disclosing. Facilitators of disclosing included a positive relationship with the HCP, HCPs directly asking victims about abuse, and HCPs ensuring that the environment is safe and disclosure is confidential. Victims advised increased awareness of HCPs reactions to disclosure and avoiding mirroring their perpetrators minimization. HCPs were encouraged to engage in direct questioning and maintain a supportive and secure environment. Positive and negative outcomes of abuse were identified, such as being able to leave the abuser or, on the other hand, the victims' situation not changing. Our results indicate that barriers for disclosure of domestic violence in healthcare settings persist despite the widespread implementation of policies and guidelines to counter them. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations for clinical practice and future research to help improve disclosure in healthcare settings.

The effect of bupivacaine on postoperative pain following thyroidectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Thyroid surgery, which is usually followed by moderate postoperative pain, has gained increasing attention in recent years. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effect of prophylactic bupivacaine on postoperative pain following thyroidectomy.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for specific keywords. RevMan 5.0 and Stata 12.0 software were used to perform meta-analyses. The endpoints were postoperative pain, rescue analgesic requirement, and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) during the immediate 24 h postoperative period.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1308 patients were included in the meta-analysis. A significant reduction of pain according to the postoperative pain scale at 1 hour (P<0.05) and rescue analgesic requirement (P<0.05) was observed following local infiltration with bupivacaine. A bilateral superficial cervical plexus block (BSCPB) with bupivacaine also significantly reduced postoperative pain at 1 hour (P<0.01) and 24 hours (P<0.01), as well as rescue analgesic requirement (P<0.00001) and PONV (P<0.01). Compared with BSCPB, local infiltration with bupivacaine provides a better effect in terms of postoperative analgesia (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend local infiltration with bupivacaine ranged from 20 to 75 mg before or after skin closure or BSCPB with bupivacaine ranged from 25 to 100 mg to reduce postoperative pain after thyroidectomy.

Semiautomated text analytics for qualitative data synthesis

Approaches to synthesizing qualitative data have, to date, largely focused on integrating the findings from published reports. However, developments in text mining software offer the potential for efficient analysis of large pooled primary qualitative datasets. This case study aimed to (a) provide a step‐by‐step guide to using one software application, Leximancer, and (b) interrogate opportunities and limitations of the software for qualitative data synthesis. We applied Leximancer v4.5 to a pool of five qualitative, UK‐based studies on transportation such as walking, cycling, and driving, and displayed the findings of the automated content analysis as intertopic distance maps. Leximancer enabled us to “zoom out” to familiarize ourselves with, and gain a broad perspective of, the pooled data. It indicated which studies clustered around dominant topics such as “people.” The software also enabled us to “zoom in” to narrow the perspective to specific subgroups and lines of enquiry. For example, “people” featured in men's and women's narratives but were talked about differently, with men mentioning “kids” and “old,” whereas women mentioned “things” and “stuff.” The approach provided us with a fresh lens for the initial inductive step in the analysis process and could guide further exploration. The limitations of using Leximancer were the substantial data preparation time involved and the contextual knowledge required from the researcher to turn lines of inquiry into meaningful insights. In summary, Leximancer is a useful tool for contributing to qualitative data synthesis, facilitating comprehensive and transparent data coding but can only inform, not replace, researcher‐led interpretive work.

Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: The eMERGe reporting guidance

AIMS

The aim of this study was to provide guidance to improve the completeness and clarity of meta-ethnography reporting.

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based policy and practice require robust evidence syntheses which can further understanding of people's experiences and associated social processes. Meta-ethnography is a rigorous seven-phase qualitative evidence synthesis methodology, developed by Noblit and Hare. Meta-ethnography is used widely in health research, but reporting is often poor quality and this discourages trust in and use of its findings. Meta-ethnography reporting guidance is needed to improve reporting quality.

DESIGN

The eMERGe study used a rigorous mixed-methods design and evidence-based methods to develop the novel reporting guidance and explanatory notes.

METHODS

The study, conducted from 2015 - 2017, comprised of: (1) a methodological systematic review of guidance for meta-ethnography conduct and reporting; (2) a review and audit of published meta-ethnographies to identify good practice principles; (3) international, multidisciplinary consensus-building processes to agree guidance content; (4) innovative development of the guidance and explanatory notes.

FINDINGS

Recommendations and good practice for all seven phases of meta-ethnography conduct and reporting were newly identified leading to 19 reporting criteria and accompanying detailed guidance.

CONCLUSION

The bespoke eMERGe Reporting Guidance, which incorporates new methodological developments and advances the methodology, can help researchers to report the important aspects of meta-ethnography. Use of the guidance should raise reporting quality. Better reporting could make assessments of confidence in the findings more robust and increase use of meta-ethnography outputs to improve practice, policy, and service user outcomes in health and other fields. This is the first tailored reporting guideline for meta-ethnography. This article is being simultaneously published in the following journals: Journal of Advanced Nursing, Psycho-oncology, Review of Education, and BMC Medical Research Methodology.

Developing a reporting guideline to improve meta-ethnography in health research: the eMERGe mixed-methods study

Background

Meta-ethnography is a commonly used methodology for qualitative evidence synthesis. Research has identified that the quality of reporting of published meta-ethnographies is often poor and this has limited the utility of meta-ethnography findings to influence policy and practice.

Objective

To develop guidance to improve the completeness and clarity of meta-ethnography reporting.

Methods/design

The meta-ethnography reporting guidance (eMERGe) study followed the recommended approach for developing health research reporting guidelines and used a systematic mixed-methods approach. It comprised (1) a methodological systematic review of guidance in the conduct and reporting of meta-ethnography; (2) a review and audit of published meta-ethnographies, along with interviews with meta-ethnography end-users, to identify good practice principles; (3) a consensus workshop and two eDelphi (Version 1, Duncan E, Swinger K, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK) studies to agree guidance content; and (4) the development of the guidance table and explanatory notes.

Results

Results from the methodological systematic review and the audit of published meta-ethnographies revealed that more guidance was required around the reporting of all phases of meta-ethnography conduct and, in particular, the synthesis phases 4–6 (relating studies, translating studies into one another and synthesising translations). Following the guidance development process, the eMERGe reporting guidance was produced, comprising 19 items grouped into the seven phases of meta-ethnography.

Limitations

The finalised guidance has not yet been evaluated in practice; therefore, it is not possible at this stage to comment on its utility. However, we look forward to evaluating its uptake and usability in the future.

Conclusions

The eMERGe reporting guidance has been developed following a rigorous process in line with guideline development recommendations. The guidance is intended to improve the clarity and completeness of reporting of meta-ethnographies, and to facilitate use of the findings within the guidance to inform the design and delivery of services and interventions in health, social care and other fields. The eMERGe project developed a range of training materials to support use of the guidance, which is freely available atwww.emergeproject.org(accessed 26 March 2018). Meta-ethnography is an evolving qualitative evidence synthesis methodology and future research should refine the guidance to accommodate future methodological developments. We will also investigate the impact of the eMERGe reporting guidance with a view to updating the guidance.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015024709 for the stage 1 systematic review.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance

AIMS

The aim of this study was to provide guidance to improve the completeness and clarity of meta-ethnography reporting.

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based policy and practice require robust evidence syntheses which can further understanding of people's experiences and associated social processes. Meta-ethnography is a rigorous seven-phase qualitative evidence synthesis methodology, developed by Noblit and Hare. Meta-ethnography is used widely in health research, but reporting is often poor quality and this discourages trust in and use of its findings. Meta-ethnography reporting guidance is needed to improve reporting quality.

DESIGN

The eMERGe study used a rigorous mixed-methods design and evidence-based methods to develop the novel reporting guidance and explanatory notes.

METHODS

The study, conducted from 2015 to 2017, comprised of: (1) a methodological systematic review of guidance for meta-ethnography conduct and reporting; (2) a review and audit of published meta-ethnographies to identify good practice principles; (3) international, multidisciplinary consensus-building processes to agree guidance content; (4) innovative development of the guidance and explanatory notes.

FINDINGS

Recommendations and good practice for all seven phases of meta-ethnography conduct and reporting were newly identified leading to 19 reporting criteria and accompanying detailed guidance.

CONCLUSION

The bespoke eMERGe Reporting Guidance, which incorporates new methodological developments and advances the methodology, can help researchers to report the important aspects of meta-ethnography. Use of the guidance should raise reporting quality. Better reporting could make assessments of confidence in the findings more robust and increase use of meta-ethnography outputs to improve practice, policy, and service user outcomes in health and other fields. This is the first tailored reporting guideline for meta-ethnography. This article is being simultaneously published in the following journals: Journal of Advanced Nursing, Psycho-oncology, Review of Education, and BMC Medical Research Methodology.

Formulating questions to explore complex interventions within qualitative evidence synthesis

When making decisions about complex interventions, guideline development groups need to factor in the sociocultural acceptability of an intervention, as well as contextual factors that impact on the feasibility of that intervention. Qualitative evidence synthesis offers one method of exploring these issues. This paper considers the extent to which current methods of question formulation are meeting this challenge. It builds on a rapid review of 38 different frameworks for formulating questions. To be useful, a question framework should recognise context (as setting, environment or context); acknowledge the criticality of different stakeholder perspectives (differentiated from the target population); accommodate elements of time/timing and place; be sensitive to qualitative data (eg, eliciting themes or findings). None of the identified frameworks satisfied all four of these criteria. An innovative question framework, PerSPEcTiF, is proposed and retrospectively applied to a published WHO guideline for a complex intervention. Further testing and evaluation of the PerSPEcTiF framework is required.

Terapias de sustitución de la función Renal: Metaestudio y síntesis de evidencias cualitativas

El objetivo del presente estudio fue sintetizar en términos de evidencias cualitativas o evidencias Q hallazgos derivados de estudios cualitativos frente al tema de las terapias de sustitución de la función renal (TSFR). Método: metaestudio cualitativo desarrollado en cuatro momentos. Resultados: se integraron 75 estudios. De los cuales, 52 exploraban experiencias relacionadas con hemodiálisis (HD), 10 de diálisis peritoneal (DP), 6 trasplante, 6 DP y HD al mismo tiempo y 1 estudio exploró las 3 TSFR. Los estudios incluidos describen y representan el fenómeno de vivir en una condición de cronicidad y estar sometido a una TSFR de manera muy semejante, que se agruparon en patrones comunes del fenómeno, estos son descritos en tres grandes temáticas: la metamorfosis de la vida; dolores diversos y la terapia invade la vida. Conclusión: los resultados dan cuenta de la estrecha interrelación de las dimensiones humanas, por esto el fenómeno de vivir en una TSFR genera una transfiguración el “Ser”, como totalidad, pues no es posible desligar una dimensión de otra, de allí la importancia de pensar la atención de las necesidades en perspectiva relacional y no jerarquizada.

Metasynthetic Madness: What Kind of Monster Have We Created?

From its origins in the 1990s, the qualitative health research metasynthesis project represented a methodological maneuver to capitalize on a growing investment in qualitatively derived study reports to create an interactive dialogue among them that would surface expanded insights about complex human phenomena. However, newer forms positioning themselves as qualitative metasynthesis but representing a much more technical and theoretically superficial form of scholarly enterprise have begun to appear in the health research literature. It seems imperative that we think through the implications of this trend and determine whether it is to be afforded the credibility of being a form of qualitative scholarship and, if so, what kind of scholarship it represents. As the standardization trend in synthesis research marches forward, we will need clarity and a strong sense of purpose if we are to preserve the essence of what the qualitative metasynthesis project was intended to be all about.

Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey

BACKGROUND

Qualitative research findings are increasingly used to inform decision-making. Research has indicated that not all quantitative research on the effects of interventions is disseminated or published. The extent to which qualitative researchers also systematically underreport or fail to publish certain types of research findings, and the impact this may have, has received little attention.

METHODS

A survey was delivered online to gather data regarding non-dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. We invited relevant stakeholders through our professional networks, authors of qualitative research identified through a systematic literature search, and further via snowball sampling.

RESULTS

1032 people took part in the survey of whom 859 participants identified as researchers, 133 as editors and 682 as peer reviewers. 68.1% of the researchers said that they had conducted at least one qualitative study that they had not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The main reasons for non-dissemination were that a publication was still intended (35.7%), resource constraints (35.4%), and that the authors gave up after the paper was rejected by one or more journals (32.5%). A majority of the editors and peer reviewers "(strongly) agreed" that the main reasons for rejecting a manuscript of a qualitative study were inadequate study quality (59.5%; 68.5%) and inadequate reporting quality (59.1%; 57.5%). Of 800 respondents, 83.1% "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination and possible resulting dissemination bias might undermine the willingness of funders to support qualitative research. 72.6% and 71.2%, respectively, "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination might lead to inappropriate health policy and health care.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of non-dissemination in qualitative research is substantial. Researchers, editors and peer reviewers play an important role in this. Non-dissemination and resulting dissemination bias may impact on health care research, practice and policy. More detailed investigations on patterns and causes of the non-dissemination of qualitative research are needed.

Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review

BACKGROUND

Qualitative systematic reviews or qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are increasingly recognised as a way to enhance the value of systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical trials. They can explain the mechanisms by which interventions, evaluated within trials, might achieve their effect. They can investigate differences in effects between different population groups. They can identify which outcomes are most important to patients, carers, health professionals and other stakeholders. QES can explore the impact of acceptance, feasibility, meaningfulness and implementation-related factors within a real world setting and thus contribute to the design and further refinement of future interventions. To produce valid, reliable and meaningful QES requires systematic identification of relevant qualitative evidence. Although the methodologies of QES, including methods for information retrieval, are well-documented, little empirical evidence exists to inform their conduct and reporting.

METHODS

This structured methodological overview examines papers on searching for qualitative research identified from the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Methodology Register and from citation searches of 15 key papers.

RESULTS

A single reviewer reviewed 1299 references. Papers reporting methodological guidance, use of innovative methodologies or empirical studies of retrieval methods were categorised under eight topical headings: overviews and methodological guidance, sampling, sources, structured questions, search procedures, search strategies and filters, supplementary strategies and standards.

CONCLUSIONS

This structured overview presents a contemporaneous view of information retrieval for qualitative research and identifies a future research agenda. This review concludes that poor empirical evidence underpins current information practice in information retrieval of qualitative research. A trend towards improved transparency of search methods and further evaluation of key search procedures offers the prospect of rapid development of search methods.

Why, when and how to update a meta-ethnography qualitative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Meta-ethnography is a unique, systematic, qualitative synthesis approach widely used to provide robust evidence on patient and clinician beliefs and experiences and understandings of complex social phenomena. It can make important theoretical and conceptual contributions to health care policy and practice.

RESULTS

Since beliefs, experiences, health care contexts and social phenomena change over time, the continued relevance of the findings from meta-ethnographies cannot be assumed. However, there is little guidance on whether, when and how meta-ethnographies should be updated; Cochrane guidance on updating reviews of intervention effectiveness is unlikely to be fully appropriate. This is the first in-depth discussion on updating a meta-ethnography; it explores why, when and how to update a meta-ethnography. Three main methods of updating the analysis and synthesis are examined. Advantages and disadvantages of each method are outlined, relating to the context, purpose, process and output of the update and the nature of the new data available. Recommendations are made for the appropriate use of each method, and a worked example of updating a meta-ethnography is provided.

CONCLUSIONS

This article makes a unique contribution to this evolving area of meta-ethnography methodology.

Protocol-developing meta-ethnography reporting guidelines (eMERGe)

Background

Designing and implementing high-quality health care services and interventions requires robustly synthesised evidence. Syntheses of qualitative research studies can provide evidence of patients’ experiences of health conditions; intervention feasibility, appropriateness and acceptability to patients; and advance understanding of health care issues. The unique, interpretive, theory-based meta-ethnography synthesis approach is suited to conveying patients’ views and developing theory to inform service design and delivery. However, meta-ethnography reporting is often poor quality, which discourages trust in, and use of, meta-ethnography findings. Users of evidence syntheses require reports that clearly articulate analytical processes and findings. Tailored research reporting guidelines can raise reporting standards but none exists for meta-ethnography. This study aims to create an evidence-based meta-ethnography reporting guideline articulating the methodological standards and depth of reporting required to improve reporting quality.

Methods/design

The mixed-methods design of this National Institute of Health Research-funded study (http://www.stir.ac.uk/emerge/) follows good practice in research reporting guideline development comprising: (1) a methodological systematic review (PROSPERO registration: CRD42015024709) to identify recommendations and guidance in conducting/reporting meta-ethnography; (2) a review and audit of published meta-ethnographies to identify good practice principles and develop standards in conduct/reporting; (3) an online workshop and Delphi studies to agree guideline content with 45 international qualitative synthesis experts and 45 other stakeholders including patients; (4) development and wide dissemination of the guideline and its accompanying detailed explanatory document, a report template for National Institute of Health Research commissioned meta-ethnographies, and training materials on guideline use.

Discussion

Meta-ethnography, devised in the field of education, is now used widely in other disciplines. Methodological advances relevant to meta-ethnography conduct exist. The extent of discipline-specific adaptations of meta-ethnography and the fit of any adaptions with the underpinning philosophy of meta-ethnography require investigation. Well-reported meta-ethnography findings could inform clinical decision-making. A bespoke meta-ethnography reporting guideline is needed to improve reporting quality, but to be effective potential users must know it exists, trust it and use it. Therefore, a rigorous study has been designed to develop and promote a guideline. By raising reporting quality, the guideline will maximise the likelihood that high-quality meta-ethnographies will contribute robust evidence to improve health care and patient outcomes.

Qualitative systematic reviews: their importance for our understanding of research relevant to pain

This article outlines what a qualitative systematic review is and explores what it can contribute to our understanding of pain. Many of us use evidence of effectiveness for various interventions when working with people in pain. A good systematic review can be invaluable in bringing together research evidence to help inform our practice and help us understand what works. In addition to evidence of effectiveness, understanding how people with pain experience both their pain and their care can help us when we are working with them to provide care that meets their needs. A rigorous qualitative systematic review can also uncover new understandings, often helping illuminate 'why' and can help build theory. Such a review can answer the question 'What is it like to have chronic pain?' This article presents the different stages of meta-ethnography, which is the most common methodology used for qualitative systematic reviews. It presents evidence from four meta-ethnographies relevant to pain to illustrate the types of findings that can emerge from this approach. It shows how new understandings may emerge and gives an example of chronic musculoskeletal pain being experienced as 'an adversarial struggle' across many aspects of the person's life. This article concludes that evidence from qualitative systematic reviews has its place alongside or integrated with evidence from more quantitative approaches.

Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual)

Simon Lewin and colleagues present a methodology for increasing transparency and confidence in qualitative research synthesis.

Evidence, regulation and 'rational' prescribing: the case of gabapentin for neuropathic pain

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

In 2004, the pharmaceutical company Warner-Lambert paid US $430 million to resolve criminal and civil legal liability for aggressive off-label marketing of gabapentin. Perhaps surprisingly, however, regulatory and legal concerns regarding the marketing of gabapentin has not significantly impacted upon the attitude of doctors towards using gabapentin for neuropathic pain. In this paper, we attempt to understand the reasons for this discrepancy between clinical practice and regulatory/legal concerns through an analysis of published discussions about gabapentin prescribing.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative empirical analysis of the published clinical debate surrounding the use of gabapentin for the management of neuropathic pain.

RESULTS

The ongoing use of gabapentin for neuropathic pain was primarily driven by the perception that it was a safe, non-addictive drug with few drug interactions, by possible similarities between the physiology of chronic pain and other neurological conditions, by the well-established clinical precedent of using antiepileptic drugs in pain management, and by the lack of alternative options available in the market. Emerging evidence of lack of effectiveness and controversies about the integrity of the scientific record appeared to be of relatively little importance to practising clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Those who want to promote 'rational' prescribing need to recognize that prescribing is driven by many factors other than epidemiological data and regulatory indications and that even intensely negative publicity about medicines may not penetrate clinical reasoning. This suggests that a range of measures may be needed to 'incentivize' rational prescribing and to promote research integrity. Regulators must be more sensitive to the contextual issues that are relevant to clinical practice when evaluating drugs for approval and developing guidelines.