TY - JOUR
T1 - Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Qualitative Evidence Syntheses, Differences From Reviews of Intervention Effectiveness and Implications for Guidance
AU - Glenton, Claire
AU - Lewin, Simon
AU - Downe, Soo
AU - Paulsen, Elizabeth
AU - Munabi-Babigumira, Susan
AU - Agarwal, Smisha
AU - Ames, Heather
AU - Cooper, Sara
AU - Daniels, Karen
AU - Houghton, Catherine
AU - Karimi‐Shahanjarini, Akram
AU - Moloi, Hlengiwe
AU - Odendaal, Willem
AU - Shakibazadeh, Elham
AU - Vasudevan, Lavanya
AU - Xyrichis, Andreas
AU - Bohren, Meghan A.
N1 - Funding Information:
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Development of the template described in this paper was funded by the Norwegian Agency for Development Co-operation (Norad), via the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. The Norwegian Institute of Public Health provided additional direct funding.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2022.
PY - 2022/2/11
Y1 - 2022/2/11
N2 - Systematic reviews of qualitative research (‘qualitative evidence syntheses’) are increasingly popular and represent a potentially important source of information about people’s views, needs and experiences. Since 2013, Cochrane has published qualitative evidence syntheses, and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group has been involved in the majority of these reviews. But more guidance is needed on how to prepare these reviews in an environment that is more familiar with reviews of quantitative research. In this paper, we describe and reflect on how Cochrane qualitative evidence syntheses differ from reviews of intervention effectiveness and how these differences have influenced the guidance developed by the EPOC group. In particular, we discuss how it has been important to display to end users, firstly, that qualitative evidence syntheses are carried out with rigour and transparency, and secondly, that these quality standards need to reflect qualitative research traditions. We also discuss lessons that reviews of effectiveness might learn from qualitative research.
AB - Systematic reviews of qualitative research (‘qualitative evidence syntheses’) are increasingly popular and represent a potentially important source of information about people’s views, needs and experiences. Since 2013, Cochrane has published qualitative evidence syntheses, and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group has been involved in the majority of these reviews. But more guidance is needed on how to prepare these reviews in an environment that is more familiar with reviews of quantitative research. In this paper, we describe and reflect on how Cochrane qualitative evidence syntheses differ from reviews of intervention effectiveness and how these differences have influenced the guidance developed by the EPOC group. In particular, we discuss how it has been important to display to end users, firstly, that qualitative evidence syntheses are carried out with rigour and transparency, and secondly, that these quality standards need to reflect qualitative research traditions. We also discuss lessons that reviews of effectiveness might learn from qualitative research.
KW - Cochrane
KW - conflict of interest
KW - purposive sampling
KW - qualitative evidence synthesis
KW - reflexivity
KW - study language
KW - systematic reviews of qualitative research
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85125836467&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/16094069211061950
DO - 10.1177/16094069211061950
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85125836467
SN - 1609-4069
VL - 21
JO - International Journal of Qualitative Methods
JF - International Journal of Qualitative Methods
ER -