‘Trying to pin down jelly’ - exploring intuitive processes in quality assessment for meta-ethnography

BackgroundStudies that systematically search for and synthesise qualitative research are becoming more evident in health care, and they can make an important contribution to patient care. However, there is still no agreement as to whether, or how we should appraise studies for inclusion. We aimed to explore the intuitive processes that determined the ‘quality’ of qualitative research for inclusion in qualitative research syntheses. We were particularly interested to explore the way that knowledge was constructed.MethodsWe used qualitative methods to explore the process of quality appraisal within a team of seven qualitative researchers funded to undertake a meta-ethnography of chronic non-malignant musculoskeletal pain. Team discussions took place monthly between October 2010 and June 2012 and were recorded and transcribed. Data was coded and organised using constant comparative method. The development of our conceptual analysis was both iterative and collaborative. The strength of this team approach to quality came from open and honest discussion, where team members felt free to agree, disagree, or change their position within the safety of the group.ResultsWe suggest two core facets of quality for inclusion in meta-ethnography - (1) Conceptual clarity; how clearly has the author articulated a concept that facilitates theoretical insight. (2) Interpretive rigour; fundamentally, can the interpretation ‘be trusted?’ Our findings showed that three important categories help the reader to judge interpretive rigour: (ii) What is the context of the interpretation? (ii) How inductive is the interpretation? (iii) Has the researcher challenged their interpretation?ConclusionsWe highlight that methods alone do not determine the quality of research for inclusion into a meta-ethnography. The strength of a concept and its capacity to facilitate theoretical insight is integral to meta-ethnography, and arguably to the quality of research. However, we suggest that to be judged ‘good enough’ there also needs to be some assurance that qualitative findings are more than simply anecdotal. Although our conceptual model was developed specifically for meta-ethnography, it may be transferable to other research methodologies.

[1]  Debbie Sharp,et al.  "Medication career" or "moral career"? The two sides of managing antidepressants: a meta-ethnography of patients' experience of antidepressants. , 2009, Social science & medicine.

[2]  F. Blyth.  The demography of chronic pain: an overview , 2010 .

[3]  E. Guba,et al.  Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences. , 2005 .

[4]  Francine Toye,et al.  What is quality in qualitative health research? , 2011, Evidence Based Nursing.

[5]  N. Denzin,et al.  Handbook of Qualitative Research , 1994 .

[6]  N. Mutrie,et al.  The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of exercise referral schemes: a systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2011, Health technology assessment.

[7]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration , 2013 .

[8]  E. Murphy,et al.  Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. , 1998, Health technology assessment.

[9]  David R. Jones,et al.  Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods , 2005 .

[10]  G. Andrews,et al.  Mja Guidelines for Assessing Qualitative Research Quality in Qualitative Research Criteria for Authors and Assessors in the Submission and Assessment of Qualitative Research Articles for the Medical Journal of Australia , 2022 .

[11]  Judith A. Holton,et al.  The Coding Process and Its Challenges , 2010 .

[12]  C. P. Goodman,et al.  The Tacit Dimension , 2003 .

[13]  J. E. Boychuk Duchscher,et al.  Grounded theory: reflections on the emergence vs. forcing debate. , 2004, Journal of advanced nursing.

[14]  Mark Engel,et al.  Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: Lessons learnt , 2008, BMC medical research methodology.

[15]  David L. Altheide,et al.  Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. , 1994 .

[16]  Catherine Pope,et al.  Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. , 2005, Social science & medicine.

[17]  F. Blyth,et al.  Book Review: Chronic Pain Epidemiology: From Aetiology to Public Health , 2010 .

[18]  Alex J. Sutton,et al.  Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports , 2007 .

[19]  G. Noblit,et al.  Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies , 1988 .

[20]  N. Denzin.  The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods , 1977 .

[21]  Jenny Donovan,et al.  Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. , 2003, Social science & medicine.

[22]  J. A. Smith,et al.  The problem of appraising qualitative research , 2004, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[23]  David R. Jones,et al.  Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a quantitative and qualitative comparison of three methods , 2007, Journal of health services research & policy.

[24]  Karin Hannes,et al.  A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis: update on a review of published papers , 2012 .

[25]  A. Booth,et al.  Should We Exclude Inadequately Reported Studies From Qualitative Systematic Reviews? An Evaluation of Sensitivity Analyses in Two Case Study Reviews , 2012, Qualitative health research.

[26]  K. Charmaz,et al.  The sage handbook of grounded theory , 2007 .

[27]  K. Charmaz,et al.  Constructing Grounded Theory , 2014 .

[28]  C. Pope,et al.  Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. , 2011, Health technology assessment.