A methodological systematic review of what’s wrong with meta-ethnography reporting
Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Erthygl › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid
StandardStandard
Yn: BMC Medical Research Methodology, Cyfrol 14, Rhif 119, 19.11.2014.
Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Erthygl › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid
HarvardHarvard
APA
CBE
MLA
VancouverVancouver
Author
RIS
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
VL - 14
JO - BMC Medical Research Methodology
JF - BMC Medical Research Methodology
SN - 1471-2288
IS - 119
ER -