TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving reporting of Meta-Ethnography

T2 - The eMERGe Reporting Guidance

AU - France, Emma F.

AU - Cunningham, Maggie

AU - Ring, Nicola

AU - Uny, Isabelle

AU - Duncan, Edward AS

AU - Jepson, Ruth G

AU - Maxwell, Margaret

AU - Roberts, Rachel J.

AU - Turley, Ruth L.

AU - Booth, Andrew

AU - Britten, Nicky

AU - Flemming, Kate

AU - Gallagher, Ian

AU - Garside, Ruth

AU - Hannes, Karin

AU - Lewin, Simon

AU - Noblit, George W.

AU - Pope, Catherine

AU - Thomas, James

AU - Vanstone, Meredith

AU - Higginbottom, Gina M. A.

AU - Noyes, Jane

N1 - This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Britten, N., France, E., Cunningham, M., Ring, N., Uny, I., Duncan, E., Ruth, J., Maxwell, M., Roberts, R., Turley, R. and Noyes, J., 2018. Improving reporting of Meta-Ethnography: The eMERGe Reporting Guidance, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13809. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. This study was funded by an NIHR Health Service and Delivery Research HS&DR grant (13/114/60). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HS&DR Programme, NIHR, NHS, or the Department of Health. The systematic reviews were undertaken with the support of DECIPHer, a UKCRC Public Health Research: Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council RES‐590‐28‐0005, Medical Research Council, the Welsh Government and the Wellcome Trust (WT087640MA), under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. This article is being simultaneously published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing, Psycho‐oncology, Review of Education, and BMC Medical Research Methodology. The article followed a double‐blind peer‐review model managed by the Journal of Advanced Nursing, and the editors from each of the journals in question consolidated on the decision process.

PY - 2019/5

Y1 - 2019/5

N2 - AbstractAimsTo provide guidance to improve the completeness and clarity of meta-ethnography reporting.BackgroundEvidence-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.MethodsThe 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, multi-disciplinary consensus-building processes to agree guidance content; (4) innovative development of the guidance and explanatory notes.FindingsRecommendations and good practice for all seven phases of meta-ethnography conduct and reporting were newly identified leading to nineteen reporting criteria and accompanying detailed guidance.ConclusionThe 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 tailoredreporting guideline for meta-ethnography. The article is being simultaneously published in the following journals: BMC Medical Research Methodology, Journal of Advanced Nursing, PLOS ONE, Psycho-Oncology; and Review of Education.

AB - AbstractAimsTo provide guidance to improve the completeness and clarity of meta-ethnography reporting.BackgroundEvidence-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.MethodsThe 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, multi-disciplinary consensus-building processes to agree guidance content; (4) innovative development of the guidance and explanatory notes.FindingsRecommendations and good practice for all seven phases of meta-ethnography conduct and reporting were newly identified leading to nineteen reporting criteria and accompanying detailed guidance.ConclusionThe 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 tailoredreporting guideline for meta-ethnography. The article is being simultaneously published in the following journals: BMC Medical Research Methodology, Journal of Advanced Nursing, PLOS ONE, Psycho-Oncology; and Review of Education.

KW - guideline

KW - meta-ethnography

KW - nursing

KW - publication standards

KW - qualitative evidence synthesis

KW - qualitative research

KW - reporting

KW - research design

KW - systematic review

U2 - 10.1111/jan.13809

DO - 10.1111/jan.13809

M3 - Article

C2 - 30644123

VL - 75

SP - 1126

EP - 1139

JO - Journal of Advanced Nursing

JF - Journal of Advanced Nursing

SN - 1365-2648

IS - 5

ER -