A methodological systematic review of what’s wrong with meta-ethnography reporting

E.F. France; N. Ring; R. Thomas; J. Noyes; M. Maxwell; R. Jepson

doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-119

A methodological systematic review of what’s wrong with meta-ethnography reporting

E.F. France, N. Ring, R. Thomas, J. Noyes, M. Maxwell, R. Jepson

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Syntheses of qualitative studies can inform health policy, services and our understanding of patient experience. Meta-ethnography is a systematic seven-phase interpretive qualitative synthesis approach well-suited to producing new theories and conceptual models. However, there are concerns about the quality of meta-ethnography reporting, particularly the analysis and synthesis processes. Our aim was to investigate the application and reporting of methods in recent meta-ethnography journal papers, focusing on the analysis and synthesis process and output.

Original language	English
Number of pages	16
Journal	BMC Medical Research Methodology
Volume	14
Issue number	119
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-119
Publication status	Published - 19 Nov 2014

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1186/1471-2288-14-119

Cite this

@article{129f3f70dcba47b38b5d956c09a069f3,

title = "A methodological systematic review of what{\textquoteright}s wrong with meta-ethnography reporting",

abstract = "Syntheses of qualitative studies can inform health policy, services and our understanding of patient experience. Meta-ethnography is a systematic seven-phase interpretive qualitative synthesis approach well-suited to producing new theories and conceptual models. However, there are concerns about the quality of meta-ethnography reporting, particularly the analysis and synthesis processes. Our aim was to investigate the application and reporting of methods in recent meta-ethnography journal papers, focusing on the analysis and synthesis process and output.",

author = "E.F. France and N. Ring and R. Thomas and J. Noyes and M. Maxwell and R. Jepson",

year = "2014",

month = nov,

day = "19",

doi = "10.1186/1471-2288-14-119",

language = "English",

volume = "14",

journal = "BMC Medical Research Methodology",

issn = "1471-2288",

publisher = "Springer Verlag",

number = "119",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A methodological systematic review of what’s wrong with meta-ethnography reporting

AU - France, E.F.

AU - Ring, N.

AU - Thomas, R.

AU - Noyes, J.

AU - Maxwell, M.

AU - Jepson, R.

PY - 2014/11/19

Y1 - 2014/11/19

N2 - Syntheses of qualitative studies can inform health policy, services and our understanding of patient experience. Meta-ethnography is a systematic seven-phase interpretive qualitative synthesis approach well-suited to producing new theories and conceptual models. However, there are concerns about the quality of meta-ethnography reporting, particularly the analysis and synthesis processes. Our aim was to investigate the application and reporting of methods in recent meta-ethnography journal papers, focusing on the analysis and synthesis process and output.

AB - Syntheses of qualitative studies can inform health policy, services and our understanding of patient experience. Meta-ethnography is a systematic seven-phase interpretive qualitative synthesis approach well-suited to producing new theories and conceptual models. However, there are concerns about the quality of meta-ethnography reporting, particularly the analysis and synthesis processes. Our aim was to investigate the application and reporting of methods in recent meta-ethnography journal papers, focusing on the analysis and synthesis process and output.

U2 - 10.1186/1471-2288-14-119

DO - 10.1186/1471-2288-14-119

M3 - Article

SN - 1471-2288

VL - 14

JO - BMC Medical Research Methodology

JF - BMC Medical Research Methodology

IS - 119

ER -

A methodological systematic review of what’s wrong with meta-ethnography reporting

Abstract

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this