AimsThe aim of this study was to provide guidance to improve the completeness and clarity of meta-ethnography reporting.BackgroundEvidence-based policy and practice require robust evidence syntheses which can further understanding of people’s experiences and associated social processes. Meta-ethnography is a rigorous seven-phase qualitative evidence synthesis methodology, developed by Noblit and Hare. Meta-ethnography is used widely in health research, but reporting is often poor quality and this discourages trust in and use of its findings. Meta-ethnography reporting guidance is needed to improve reporting quality.DesignThe eMERGe study used a rigorous mixed-methods design and evidence-based methods to develop the novel reporting guidance and explanatory notes.MethodsThe study, conducted from 2015 to 2017, comprised of: (1) a methodological systematic review of guidance for meta-ethnography conduct and reporting; (2) a review and audit of published meta-ethnographies to identify good practice principles; (3) international, multidisciplinary consensus-building processes to agree guidance content; (4) innovative development of the guidance and explanatory notes.FindingsRecommendations and good practice for all seven phases of meta-ethnography conduct and reporting were newly identified leading to 19 reporting criteria and accompanying detailed guidance.ConclusionThe bespoke eMERGe Reporting Guidance, which incorporates new methodological developments and advances the methodology, can help researchers to report the important aspects of meta-ethnography. Use of the guidance should raise reporting quality. Better reporting could make assessments of confidence in the findings more robust and increase use of meta-ethnography outputs to improve practice, policy, and service user outcomes in health and other fields. This is the first tailored reporting guideline for meta-ethnography. This article is being simultaneously published in the following journals: Journal of Advanced Nursing, Psycho-oncology, Review of Education, and BMC Medical Research Methodology.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0600-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundSyntheses of qualitative studies can inform health policy, services and our understanding of patient experience. Meta-ethnography is a systematic seven-phase interpretive qualitative synthesis approach well-suited to producing new theories and conceptual models. However, there are concerns about the quality of meta-ethnography reporting, particularly the analysis and synthesis processes. Our aim was to investigate the application and reporting of methods in recent meta-ethnography journal papers, focusing on the analysis and synthesis process and output.MethodsMethodological systematic review of health-related meta-ethnography journal papers published from 2012–2013. We searched six electronic databases, Google Scholar and Zetoc for papers using key terms including ‘meta-ethnography.’ Two authors independently screened papers by title and abstract with 100% agreement. We identified 32 relevant papers. Three authors independently extracted data and all authors analysed the application and reporting of methods using content analysis.ResultsMeta-ethnography was applied in diverse ways, sometimes inappropriately. In 13% of papers the approach did not suit the research aim. In 66% of papers reviewers did not follow the principles of meta-ethnography. The analytical and synthesis processes were poorly reported overall. In only 31% of papers reviewers clearly described how they analysed conceptual data from primary studies (phase 5, ‘translation’ of studies) and in only one paper (3%) reviewers explicitly described how they conducted the analytic synthesis process (phase 6). In 38% of papers we could not ascertain if reviewers had achieved any new interpretation of primary studies. In over 30% of papers seminal methodological texts which could have informed methods were not cited.ConclusionsWe believe this is the first in-depth methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct and reporting. Meta-ethnography is an evolving approach. Current reporting of methods, analysis and synthesis lacks clarity and comprehensiveness. This is a major barrier to use of meta-ethnography findings that could contribute significantly to the evidence base because it makes judging their rigour and credibility difficult. To realise the high potential value of meta-ethnography for enhancing health care and understanding patient experience requires reporting that clearly conveys the methodology, analysis and findings. Tailored meta-ethnography reporting guidelines, developed through expert consensus, could improve reporting.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-119) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Decision making in health and social care requires robust syntheses of both quantitative and qualitative evidence. Meta-ethnography is a seven-phase methodology for synthesising qualitative studies. Developed in 1988 by sociologists in education Noblit and Hare, meta-ethnography has evolved since its inception; it is now widely used in healthcare research and is gaining popularity in education research. The aim of this article is to provide up-to-date, in-depth guidance on conducting the complex analytic synthesis phases 4 to 6 of meta-ethnography through analysis of the latest methodological evidence. Methods We report findings from a methodological systematic review conducted from 2015 to 2016. Fourteen databases and five other online resources were searched. Expansive searches were also conducted resulting in inclusion of 57 publications on meta-ethnography conduct and reporting from a range of academic disciplines published from 1988 to 2016. Results Current guidance on applying meta-ethnography originates from a small group of researchers using the methodology in a health context. We identified that researchers have operationalised the analysis and synthesis methods of meta-ethnography – determining how studies are related (phase 4), translating studies into one another (phase 5), synthesising translations (phase 6) and line of argument synthesis - to suit their own syntheses resulting in variation in methods and their application. Empirical research is required to compare the impact of different methods of translation and synthesis. Some methods are potentially better at preserving links with the context and meaning of primary studies, a key principle of meta-ethnography. A meta-ethnography can and should include reciprocal and refutational translation and line of argument synthesis, rather than only one of these, to maximise the impact of its outputs. Conclusion The current work is the first to articulate and differentiate the methodological variations and their application for different purposes and represents a significant advance in the understanding of the methodological application of meta-ethnography. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0670-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aims The aim of this study was to provide guidance to improve the completeness and clarity of meta‐ethnography reporting. Background Evidence‐based policy and practice require robust evidence syntheses which can further understanding of people's experiences and associated social processes. Meta‐ethnography is a rigorous seven‐phase qualitative evidence synthesis methodology, developed by Noblit and Hare. Meta‐ethnography is used widely in health research, but reporting is often poor quality and this discourages trust in and use of its findings. Meta‐ethnography reporting guidance is needed to improve reporting quality. Design The eMERGe study used a rigorous mixed‐methods design and evidence‐based methods to develop the novel reporting guidance and explanatory notes. Methods The study, conducted from 2015 to 2017, comprised of: (1) a methodological systematic review of guidance for meta‐ethnography conduct and reporting; (2) a review and audit of published meta‐ethnographies to identify good practice principles; (3) international, multidisciplinary consensus‐building processes to agree guidance content; (4) innovative development of the guidance and explanatory notes. Findings Recommendations and good practice for all seven phases of meta‐ethnography conduct and reporting were newly identified leading to 19 reporting criteria and accompanying detailed guidance. Conclusion The bespoke eMERGe Reporting Guidance, which incorporates new methodological developments and advances the methodology, can help researchers to report the important aspects of meta‐ethnography. Use of the guidance should raise reporting quality. Better reporting could make assessments of confidence in the findings more robust and increase use of meta‐ethnography outputs to improve practice, policy, and service user outcomes in health and other fields. This is the first tailored reporting guideline for meta‐ethnography. This article is being simultaneously published in the following journals: Journal of Advanced Nursing, Psycho‐oncology, Review of Education, and BMC Medical Research Methodology.

BackgroundNon-adherence to prescribed treatments is the primary cause of treatment failure in pediatric long-term conditions. Greater understanding of parents and caregivers’ reasons for non-adherence can help to address this problem and improve outcomes for children with long-term conditions.MethodsWe carried out a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Medline, Embase, Cinahl and PsycInfo were searched for relevant studies published in English and German between 1996 and 2011. Papers were included if they contained qualitative data, for example from interviews or focus groups, reporting the views of parents and caregivers of children with a range of long-term conditions on their treatment adherence. Papers were quality assessed and analysed using thematic synthesis.ResultsNineteen papers were included reporting 17 studies with caregivers from 423 households in five countries. Long-term conditions included; asthma, cystic fibrosis, HIV, diabetes and juvenile arthritis. Across all conditions caregivers were making on-going attempts to balance competing concerns about the treatment (such as perceived effectiveness or fear of side effects) with the condition itself (for instance perceived long-term threat to child). Although the barriers to implementing treatment regimens varied across the different conditions (including complexity and time-consuming nature of treatments, un-palatability and side-effects of medications), it was clear that caregivers worked hard to overcome these day-to-day challenges and to deal with child resistance to treatments. Yet, carers reported that strict treatment adherence, which is expected by health professionals, could threaten their priorities around preserving family relationships and providing a ‘normal life’ for their child and any siblings.ConclusionsTreatment adherence in long-term pediatric conditions is a complex issue which needs to be seen in the context of caregivers balancing the everyday needs of the child within everyday family life. Health professionals may be able to help caregivers respond positively to the challenge of treatment adherence for long-term conditions by simplifying treatment regimens to minimise impact on family life and being aware of difficulties around child resistance and supportive of strategies to attempt to overcome this. Caregivers would also welcome help with communicating with children about treatment goals.

Objectives: Synthesizing qualitative research is an important means of ensuring the needs, preferences, and experiences of patients are taken into account by service providers and policy makers, but the range of methods available can appear confusing. This study presents the methods for synthesizing qualitative research most used in health research to-date and, specifically those with a potential role in health technology assessment. Methods: To identify reviews conducted using the eight main methods for synthesizing qualitative studies, nine electronic databases were searched using key terms including meta-ethnography and synthesis. A summary table groups the identified reviews by their use of the eight methods, highlighting the methods used most generally and specifically in relation to health technology assessment topics. Results: Although there is debate about how best to identify and quality appraise qualitative research for synthesis, 107 reviews were identified using one of the eight main methods. Four methods (meta-ethnography, meta-study, meta-summary, and thematic synthesis) have been most widely used and have a role within health technology assessment. Meta-ethnography is the leading method for synthesizing qualitative health research. Thematic synthesis is also useful for integrating qualitative and quantitative findings. Four other methods (critical interpretive synthesis, grounded theory synthesis, meta-interpretation, and cross-case analysis) have been under-used in health research and their potential in health technology assessments is currently under-developed. Conclusions: Synthesizing individual qualitative studies has becoming increasingly common in recent years. Although this is still an emerging research discipline such an approach is one means of promoting the patient-centeredness of health technology assessments.Keywords: Qualitative research, Patient-centered care, Review literature, Health technology assessment, SynthesisAll authors attest that (1) Each named author contributed to both the conception/design and/or analysis/interpretation of the project and the writing of the paper; (2) Each has approved the version being submitted; and (3) The content has not been published nor is being considered for publication elsewhere (although a longer report by the authors on the same topic has been published by NHS Quality Improvement Scotland). We acknowledge input from staff at NHS Quality Improvement Scotland (NHS QIS) (now Healthcare Improvement Scotland) and the University of Aberdeen who contributed to the full report on which this study is based. This work was funded by Healthcare Improvement Scotland including a consultancy fee to N.R. and R.J. to author the full report (18). K.R. is employed by Healthcare Improvement Scotland.

No abstract

BackgroundDesigning and implementing high-quality health care services and interventions requires robustly synthesised evidence. Syntheses of qualitative research studies can provide evidence of patients’ experiences of health conditions; intervention feasibility, appropriateness and acceptability to patients; and advance understanding of health care issues. The unique, interpretive, theory-based meta-ethnography synthesis approach is suited to conveying patients’ views and developing theory to inform service design and delivery. However, meta-ethnography reporting is often poor quality, which discourages trust in, and use of, meta-ethnography findings. Users of evidence syntheses require reports that clearly articulate analytical processes and findings. Tailored research reporting guidelines can raise reporting standards but none exists for meta-ethnography. This study aims to create an evidence-based meta-ethnography reporting guideline articulating the methodological standards and depth of reporting required to improve reporting quality.Methods/designThe mixed-methods design of this National Institute of Health Research-funded study (http://www.stir.ac.uk/emerge/) follows good practice in research reporting guideline development comprising: (1) a methodological systematic review (PROSPERO registration: CRD42015024709) to identify recommendations and guidance in conducting/reporting meta-ethnography; (2) a review and audit of published meta-ethnographies to identify good practice principles and develop standards in conduct/reporting; (3) an online workshop and Delphi studies to agree guideline content with 45 international qualitative synthesis experts and 45 other stakeholders including patients; (4) development and wide dissemination of the guideline and its accompanying detailed explanatory document, a report template for National Institute of Health Research commissioned meta-ethnographies, and training materials on guideline use.DiscussionMeta-ethnography, devised in the field of education, is now used widely in other disciplines. Methodological advances relevant to meta-ethnography conduct exist. The extent of discipline-specific adaptations of meta-ethnography and the fit of any adaptions with the underpinning philosophy of meta-ethnography require investigation. Well-reported meta-ethnography findings could inform clinical decision-making. A bespoke meta-ethnography reporting guideline is needed to improve reporting quality, but to be effective potential users must know it exists, trust it and use it. Therefore, a rigorous study has been designed to develop and promote a guideline. By raising reporting quality, the guideline will maximise the likelihood that high-quality meta-ethnographies will contribute robust evidence to improve health care and patient outcomes.