Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: The eMERGe reporting guidance.


Journal

Psycho-oncology
ISSN: 1099-1611
Titre abrégé: Psychooncology
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9214524

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 2019
Historique:
received: 13 06 2017
revised: 22 06 2018
accepted: 03 07 2018
pubmed: 16 1 2019
medline: 14 2 2020
entrez: 16 1 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The aim of this study was to provide guidance to improve the completeness and clarity of meta-ethnography reporting. 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. The eMERGe study used a rigorous mixed-methods design and evidence-based methods to develop the novel reporting guidance and explanatory notes. 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. 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. 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.

Sections du résumé

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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30644150
doi: 10.1002/pon.4915
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

447-458

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K023209/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 13/114/60
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : WT087640MA
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : HS&DR/13/114/60
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

© 2019 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Auteurs

Emma F France (EF)

University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.

Maggie Cunningham (M)

University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.

Nicola Ring (N)

Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK.

Isabelle Uny (I)

University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.

Edward A S Duncan (EAS)

University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.

Ruth G Jepson (RG)

University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Margaret Maxwell (M)

University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.

Rachel J Roberts (RJ)

University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.

Ruth L Turley (RL)

Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.

Andrew Booth (A)

University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Nicky Britten (N)

University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.

Kate Flemming (K)

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Ian Gallagher (I)

eMERGe project, Stirling, UK.

Ruth Garside (R)

University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.

Karin Hannes (K)

University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Simon Lewin (S)

Global Health Unit Norwegian Institute of Public Health and Health Systems Research Unit, Oslo, Norway.
South African Medical Research Council, Capetown, South Africa.

George W Noblit (GW)

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Catherine Pope (C)

University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

James Thomas (J)

EPPI-Centre Institute of Education, London, UK.

Meredith Vanstone (M)

McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Gina M A Higginbottom (GMA)

School of Health Sciences & Centre for Evidence Based Health Care, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Jane Noyes (J)

Bangor University, Bangor, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH