Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Qualitative Evidence Syntheses, Differences From Reviews of Intervention Effectiveness and Implications for Guidance

Claire Glenton; Simon Lewin; Soo Downe; Elizabeth Paulsen; Susan Munabi-Babigumira; Smisha Agarwal; Heather Ames; Sara Cooper; Karen Daniels; Catherine Houghton; Akram Karimi‐Shahanjarini; Hlengiwe Moloi; Willem Odendaal; Elham Shakibazadeh; Lavanya Vasudevan; Andreas Xyrichis; Meghan A. Bohren

doi:10.1177/16094069211061950

Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Qualitative Evidence Syntheses, Differences From Reviews of Intervention Effectiveness and Implications for Guidance

Claire Glenton^*, Simon Lewin, Soo Downe, Elizabeth Paulsen, Susan Munabi-Babigumira, Smisha Agarwal, Heather Ames, Sara Cooper, Karen Daniels, Catherine Houghton, Akram Karimi‐Shahanjarini, Hlengiwe Moloi, Willem Odendaal, Elham Shakibazadeh, Lavanya Vasudevan, Andreas Xyrichis, Meghan A. Bohren

^*Corresponding author for this work

Applied Technologies for Clinical Care

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

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original language	English
Journal	International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Volume	21
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211061950
Publication status	Published - 11 Feb 2022

Keywords

Cochrane
conflict of interest
purposive sampling
qualitative evidence synthesis
reflexivity
study language
systematic reviews of qualitative research

Access to Document

10.1177/16094069211061950

Cite this

Glenton, C., Lewin, S., Downe, S., Paulsen, E., Munabi-Babigumira, S., Agarwal, S., Ames, H., Cooper, S., Daniels, K., Houghton, C., Karimi‐Shahanjarini, A., Moloi, H., Odendaal, W., Shakibazadeh, E., Vasudevan, L., Xyrichis, A., & Bohren, M. A. (2022). Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Qualitative Evidence Syntheses, Differences From Reviews of Intervention Effectiveness and Implications for Guidance. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211061950

@article{2128e53daeb5417dbccc565b6253ee2d,

title = "Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Qualitative Evidence Syntheses, Differences From Reviews of Intervention Effectiveness and Implications for Guidance",

abstract = "Systematic reviews of qualitative research ({\textquoteleft}qualitative evidence syntheses{\textquoteright}) are increasingly popular and represent a potentially important source of information about people{\textquoteright}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.",

keywords = "Cochrane, conflict of interest, purposive sampling, qualitative evidence synthesis, reflexivity, study language, systematic reviews of qualitative research",

author = "Claire Glenton and Simon Lewin and Soo Downe and Elizabeth Paulsen and Susan Munabi-Babigumira and Smisha Agarwal and Heather Ames and Sara Cooper and Karen Daniels and Catherine Houghton and Akram Karimi‐Shahanjarini and Hlengiwe Moloi and Willem Odendaal and Elham Shakibazadeh and Lavanya Vasudevan and Andreas Xyrichis and Bohren, {Meghan A.}",

note = "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: {\textcopyright} The Author(s) 2022.",

year = "2022",

month = feb,

day = "11",

doi = "10.1177/16094069211061950",

language = "English",

volume = "21",

journal = "International Journal of Qualitative Methods",

issn = "1609-4069",

publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",

}

Glenton, C, Lewin, S, Downe, S, Paulsen, E, Munabi-Babigumira, S, Agarwal, S, Ames, H, Cooper, S, Daniels, K, Houghton, C, Karimi‐Shahanjarini, A, Moloi, H, Odendaal, W, Shakibazadeh, E, Vasudevan, L, Xyrichis, A & Bohren, MA 2022, 'Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Qualitative Evidence Syntheses, Differences From Reviews of Intervention Effectiveness and Implications for Guidance', International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211061950

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 -

Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Qualitative Evidence Syntheses, Differences From Reviews of Intervention Effectiveness and Implications for Guidance

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this