Search

Abstract Background Health policy makers now have access to a greater number and variety of systematic reviews to inform different stages in the policy making process, including reviews of qualitative research. The inclusion of mixed methods studies in systematic reviews is increasing, but these studies pose particular challenges to methods of review. This article examines the quality of the reporting of mixed methods and qualitative-only studies. Methods We used two completed systematic reviews to generate a sample of qualitative studies and mixed method studies in order to make an assessment of how the quality of reporting and rigor of qualitative-only studies compares with that of mixed-methods studies. Results Overall, the reporting of qualitative studies in our sample was consistently better when compared with the reporting of mixed methods studies. We found that mixed methods studies are less likely to provide a description of the research conduct or qualitative data analysis procedures and less likely to be judged credible or provide rich data and thick description compared with standalone qualitative studies. Our time-related analysis shows that for both types of study, papers published since 2003 are more likely to report on the study context, describe analysis procedures, and be judged credible and provide rich data. However, the reporting of other aspects of research conduct (i.e. descriptions of the research question, the sampling strategy, and data collection methods) in mixed methods studies does not appear to have improved over time. Conclusions Mixed methods research makes an important contribution to health research in general, and could make a more substantial contribution to systematic reviews. Through our careful analysis of the quality of reporting of mixed methods and qualitative-only research, we have identified areas that deserve more attention in the conduct and reporting of mixed methods research.

Abstract In collaborative qualitative research in Asia, data are usually collected in the national language, and this poses challenges for analysis. Translation of transcripts to a language common to the whole research team is time consuming and expensive; meaning can easily be lost in translation; and validity of the data may be compromised in this process. We draw on several published examples from public health research conducted in mainland China, to highlight how language can influence rigour in the qualitative research process; for each problem we suggest potential solutions based on the methods used in one of our research projects in China. Problems we have encountered include obtaining sufficient depth and detail in qualitative data; deciding on language for data collection; managing data collected in Mandarin; and the influence of language on interpreting meaning. We have suggested methods for overcoming problems associated with collecting, analysing, and interpreting qualitative data in a local language, that we think help maintain analytical openness in collaborative qualitative research. We developed these methods specifically in research conducted in Mandarin in mainland China; but they need further testing in other countries with data collected in other languages. Examples from other researchers are needed.

Abstract Background Qualitative synthesis has become more commonplace in recent years. Meta-ethnography is one of several methods for synthesising qualitative research and is being used increasingly within health care research. However, many aspects of the steps in the process remain ill-defined. Discussion We utilized the seven stages of the synthesis process to synthesise qualitative research on adherence to tuberculosis treatment. In this paper we discuss the methodological and practical challenges faced; of particular note are the methods used in our synthesis, the additional steps that we found useful in clarifying the process, and the key methodological challenges encountered in implementing the meta-ethnographic approach. The challenges included shaping an appropriate question for the synthesis; identifying relevant studies; assessing the quality of the studies; and synthesising findings across a very large number of primary studies from different contexts and research traditions. We offer suggestions that may assist in undertaking meta-ethnographies in the future. Summary Meta-ethnography is a useful method for synthesising qualitative research and for developing models that interpret findings across multiple studies. Despite its growing use in health research, further research is needed to address the wide range of methodological and epistemological questions raised by the approach.