Einführung in die qualitative Evidenzsynthese – Varianten und
                    Anwendung

Nadine Janis Pohontsch; Helene Hense; Veronika Lentsch

doi:10.1055/a-2263-1270

Die Rehabilitation, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Rehabilitation (Stuttg) 2024; 63(04): 238-246
DOI: 10.1055/a-2263-1270

Methoden in der Rehabilitationsforschung

Einführung in die qualitative Evidenzsynthese – Varianten und Anwendung

Introduction to qualitative evidence synthesis – Variants and application

Nadine Janis Pohontsch

¹Institut und Poliklinik für Allgemeinmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf

,

Helene Hense

²Zentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung (ZEGV), Medizinische Fakultät und Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus der Technischen Universität Dresden

,

Veronika Lentsch

³Gesundheit & Soziales, Berufsakademie Nord, Hamburg

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Zusammenfassung

Qualitative Evidenzsynthesen (QES) werden in der deutschen Rehabilitationsforschung bislang selten durchgeführt, obwohl robuste Synthesen qualitativer Evidenz zu wissenschaftlich fundierteren Entscheidungen im Gesundheitssystem führen können. Der Artikel führt in das Thema der qualitativen Evidenzsynthese ein, indem drei verschiedene Synthesemethoden – Thematische Synthese, Meta-Ethnografie und Grounded-Theory-Synthese – exemplarisch beschrieben und mit Beispielen aus der Rehabilitationsforschung illustriert werden. Es folgen Hinweise zur Auswahl geeigneter QES-Methoden und Überlegungen zu den Herausforderungen von QES, die mit der Literaturrecherche und Qualitätsbewertung der eingeschlossenen Studien verbunden sind. Auch werden Gütekriterien und Leitfäden für deren Anwendung vorgestellt. GRADE-CERQual kann zur Messung der Zuverlässigkeit der Ergebnisse aus QES angewendet werden. Der Artikel schließt mit Überlegungen zur Bedeutsamkeit der QES für die Rehabilitationsforschung.

Abstract

Qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are still uncommon in German rehabilitation research, although robust syntheses of qualitative evidence may lead to more strongly scientifically based decisions in health care. This article introduces the topic of qualitative evidence synthesis by describing three different synthesis methods – thematic synthesis, meta-ethnography, and grounded theory synthesis – and illustrating them with examples from rehabilitation research. This is followed by guidance on selecting the appropriate QES-method and reflections on the challenges of QES that are associated with the literature search and quality assessment of the studies to be included in the synthesis. Likewise considerations on quality criteria and their application are taken into account. GRADE-CERQual provides guidance for assessing confidence of findings from QES. Finally the value of QES for rehabilitation research is discussed.

Schlüsselwörter

Qualitative Evidenzsynthese - Thematische Synthese - Meta-Ethnografie - Grounded-Theory-Synthese - qualitative Forschungsmethoden

Keywords

qualitative evidence synthesis - thematic synthesis - meta-ethnography - grounded theory synthesis - qualitative research methods

Volltext

Referenzen

Literatur
1 Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC medical research methodology 2009; 9: 59
2 France EF, Uny I, Ring N. et al. A methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct to articulate the complex analytical phases. BMC Medical Research Methology 2019; 19: 35
3 Sackett DL, Wennberg JE. Choosing the best research design for each question. BMJ 1997; 315: 1636
4 Greenhalgh T. How to Read a Paper: The Basics of Evidence-based Medicine and Healthcare. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2019
5 Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2007
6 Chalmers I. The lethal consequences of failing to make use of all relevant evidence about the effects of medical treatments: the need for systematic reviews. In: Rothwell P, Hrsg. Treating individuals: from randomised trials to personalised medicine. London: Lancet; 2007: 37–58;
7 Thorne S, Jensen L, Kearney MH, Noblit G, Sandelowski M. Qualitative metasynthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qualitative Health Research 2004; 14: 1342-1365
8 Paterson B, Thorne S. Canam et al. Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001
9 Booth A. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review. Sage publications inc; 2016
10 Karbach U, Stamer M, Holmberg C. et al. Qualitative Studien in der Versorgungsforschung – Diskussionspapier, Teil 2: Stand qualitativer Versorgungsforschung in Deutschland – ein exemplarischer Überblick. Das Gesundheitswesen 2012; 74: 516-525
11 Meyer T, Karbach U, Holmberg C. et al. Qualitative Studien in der Versorgungsforschung – Diskussionspapier, Teil 1: Gegenstandsbestimmung. Das Gesundheitswesen 2012; 74: 510-515
12 Ullrich C, Queder A, Anders C, Poß-Doering R, Nöst S. Anwendung und Darstellung qualitativer Methoden in der Versorgungsforschung in Deutschland: ein Scoping Review zu Primärstudien (2010–2019). Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 2022; 173: 75-84
13 Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Newbury Parks, CA: Sage; 1988
14 Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology 2008; 8: 45
15 Ring NA, Ritchie K, Mandava L, Jepson R. A guide to synthesising qualitative research for researchers undertaking health technology assessments and systematic reviews. NHS Quality Improvement Scotland (NHS QIS). 2011
16 Noyes J, Booth A, Cargo M. et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 1: introduction. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2018; 97: 35-38
17 Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K. et al. Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. Bremen (DE): Integrate-HTA; 2016
18 Flemming K, Noyes J. Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Where Are We at?. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2021; 20: 160940692199327
19 Boyatzis R. Transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1998
20 Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L. Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office. London: Cabinet Office; 2003
21 Wray F, Clarke D. Longer-term needs of stroke survivors with communication difficulties living in the community: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ open 2017; 7: e017944
22 Appendix H. Quality appraisal checklist – qualitative studies Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance (third edition) Guidance NICE. Im Internet https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg4/chapter/appendix-h-quality-appraisal-checklist-qualitative-studies#checklist-2 Stand: 15.07.2021
23 Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3. Im Internet www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
24 Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C. et al. Using meta ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002; 7: 209-215
25 Sattar R, Lawton R, Panagioti M. et al. Meta-ethnography in healthcare research: a guide to using a meta-ethnographic approach for literature synthesis. BMC health services research 2021; 21: 50
26 Toye F, Seers K, Allcock N. et al. Meta-ethnography 25 years on: challenges and insights for synthesising a large number of qualitative studies. BMC medical research methodology 2014; 14: 80
27 Soundy A, Heneghan NR. Meta-ethnography. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 2022; 15: 266-286
28 France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N. et al. Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: The eMERGe reporting guidance. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2019; 75: 1126-1139
29 Cunningham M, France EF, Ring N. et al. Developing a reporting guideline to improve meta-ethnography in health research: the eMERGe mixed-methods study. Southhampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2019
30 Martin-Saez MM. JN The experience of occupational identity disruption post stroke: a systematic review and meta-ethnography. Diasabil Rehabil 2021; 43: 1044-1055
31 Glaser BG, Strauss AL. Grounded Theory. Strategien qualitativer Forschung. Bern: Huber; 2008
32 Corbin JSA. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2015
33 Finfgeld DL. Metasynthesis: The State of the Art—So Far. Qualitative Health Research 2003; 13: 893-904
34 Kearney M. Ready-to-wear: Discovering grounded formal theory. Research in Nursing & Health 1998; 21: 179-186
35 Thier A, Holmberg C. The patients’ view: age-related macular degeneration and its effects – a meta-synthesis. Disability and Rehabilitation 2020; 1-11
36 Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K. et al. Structured methodology review identified seven (RETREAT) criteria for selecting qualitative evidence synthesis approaches. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2018; 99: 41-52
37 Duden GS. Challenges to qualitative evidence synthesis – Aiming for diversity and abstracting without losing meaning. Methods in Psychology 2021; 5: 100070
38 Downe S, Finlayson KW, Lawrie TA. et al. Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 1 – Using qualitative evidence synthesis to inform guideline scope and develop qualitative findings statements. Health Res Policy Syst 2019; 17: 76
39 Munthe-Kaas H, Bohren MA, Glenton C. et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 3: how to assess methodological limitations. Implementation Science : IS 2018; 13: 9
40 Sandelowski M, Docherty S, Emden C. Focus on qualitative methods. Qualitative metasynthesis: issues and techniques. Research in Nursing & Health 1997; 20: 365-371
41 Booth A. Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice. Library Hi Tech 2006; 24: 355-368
42 Booth A. Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review. Syst Rev 2016; 5: 74
43 Evans D. Database searches for qualitative research. J Med Libr Assoc 2002; 90: 290-293
44 Rosumeck S, Wagner M, Wallraf S. et al. A validation study revealed differences in design and performance of search filters for qualitative research in PsycINFO and CINAHL. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2020; 128: 101-108
45 Finfgeld-Connett D, Johnson ED. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2013; 69: 194-204
46 Toye F, Seers K, Allcock N. et al. 'Trying to pin down jelly' – exploring intuitive processes in quality assessment for meta-ethnography. BMC medical research methodology 2013; 13: 46
47 Carroll C, Booth A, Lloyd-Jones M. Should we exclude inadequately reported studies from qualitative systematic reviews? An evaluation of sensitivity analyses in two case study reviews. Qualitative Health Research 2012; 22: 1425-1434
48 Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP Qualitative Checklist; 2018. Im Internet https://casp-uk.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf; Stand: 14.07.2021
49 Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C. et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. Implementation Science : IS 2018; 13: 2
50 Glenton C, Bohren MA, Downe S. et al. EPOC Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Protocol and review template. Version 1.1. EPOC Resources for review authors.