Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance.
Guideline
Meta-ethnography
Nursing
Publication standards
Qualitative evidence synthesis
Qualitative research
Reporting
Research design
Systematic review
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 01 2019
31 01 2019
Historique:
entrez:
3
2
2019
pubmed:
3
2
2019
medline:
25
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
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: 30709371
doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0600-0
pii: 10.1186/s12874-018-0600-0
pmc: PMC6359764
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
25Subventions
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : WT087640MA
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : HS&DR/13/114/60
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Syst Rev. 2016 Mar 15;5:44
pubmed: 26979748
Med J Aust. 2006 Sep 4;185(5):263-7
pubmed: 16948622
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Mar 21;13:46
pubmed: 23517438
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Nov 08;(11):ED000073
pubmed: 24524152
Soc Sci Med. 2005 Jul;61(1):133-55
pubmed: 15847968
Med Educ. 2013 Mar;47(3):252-60
pubmed: 23398011
Qual Health Res. 2013 Jan;23(1):126-41
pubmed: 23166156
Implement Sci. 2016 Jul 18;11:98
pubmed: 27430879
Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2010 Feb 08;5:
pubmed: 20640028
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Aug 11;9:59
pubmed: 19671152
J Med Libr Assoc. 2006 Oct;94(4):421-9, e205
pubmed: 17082834
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011 Oct;27(4):384-90
pubmed: 22004781
Qual Health Res. 2014 Nov;24(11):1581-91
pubmed: 25192758
Qual Health Res. 2007 Jan;17(1):113-21
pubmed: 17170249
J Adv Nurs. 2013 Jan;69(1):194-204
pubmed: 22591030
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002 Oct;7(4):209-15
pubmed: 12425780
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 May;97:49-58
pubmed: 29247700
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Nov 27;12:181
pubmed: 23185978
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Health Policy Plan. 2014 Dec;29 Suppl 3:iii70-8
pubmed: 25435538
Health Technol Assess. 2011 Dec;15(43):1-164
pubmed: 22176717
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006 Jul 26;6:35
pubmed: 16872487
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Apr 16;8:21
pubmed: 18416812
BMJ. 2017 Jan 16;356:j80
pubmed: 28093384
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 May;97:79-85
pubmed: 29222060
Psychooncology. 2015 Nov;24(11):1347-8
pubmed: 26291310
Prof Inferm. 2012 Jan-Mar;65(1):55-60
pubmed: 22463754
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Nov 19;14:119
pubmed: 25407140
Nurse Res. 2008;15(2):59-71
pubmed: 18283763
Qual Health Res. 2004 Dec;14(10):1342-65
pubmed: 15538004
PLoS Med. 2010 Feb 16;7(2):e1000217
pubmed: 20169112
PLoS Med. 2015 Oct 27;12(10):e1001895
pubmed: 26506244
Soc Sci Med. 2003 Feb;56(4):671-84
pubmed: 12560003
Qual Health Res. 2017 Jan;27(1):3-12
pubmed: 27956657
AORN J. 2009 Nov;90(5):701-2, 705-10
pubmed: 19895928
BMC Med. 2013 Jan 29;11:20
pubmed: 23360661
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015 Nov 25;15:103
pubmed: 26606922
Qual Health Res. 2013 Sep;23(9):1285-92
pubmed: 23964060
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2005 Sep;3(8):207-15
pubmed: 21631749
Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Nov;85(2):e131-43
pubmed: 21396793
Soc Sci Med. 2009 Jan;68(1):154-68
pubmed: 19013702
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Jun 21;14:80
pubmed: 24951054
J Adv Nurs. 2005 Apr;50(2):204-11
pubmed: 15788085