A systematic review and metaethnography to identify how effective, cost-effective, accessible and acceptable self-management support interventions are for men with long-term conditions (SELF-MAN)

Abstract

Health Services and Delivery ResearchISSN 2050-4349 (Print) ISSN 2050-4357 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HS&DR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Services and Delivery Research journalReports are published in Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HS&DR programme or programmes which preceded the HS&DR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. HS&DR programmeThe Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was established to fund a broad range of research. It combines the strengths and contributions of two previous NIHR research programmes: the Health Services Research (HSR) programme and the Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO) programme, which were merged in January 2012.The HS&DR programme aims to produce rigorous and relevant evidence on the quality, access and organisation of health services including costs and outcomes, as well as research on implementation. The programme will enhance the strategic focus on research that matters to the NHS and is keen to support ambitious evaluative research to improve health services.For more information about the HS&DR programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HS&DR programme or one of its preceding programmes as project number 12/5001/14. The contractual start date was in June 2013. The final report began editorial review in June 2014 and was accepted for publication in December 2014. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HS&DR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Department of Health....

Developing a reporting guideline to improve meta-ethnography in health research: the eMERGe mixed-methods study

“…Two studies conducted the meta-ethnography alongside a quantitative systematic review on the same topic. 63,64 The number of included studies in these meta-ethnographies ranged from 4 to 51 (see Table 3).…”

“…Mostly, the audit standards were met in part rather than in full: only six publications (32%) were considered to meet fully ≥ 50% of the applicable standards. The publication meeting most standards in full or in part (88%) was, however, 300 pages long (Galdas et al 63 ). Overall, the 19 meta-ethnography publications all had some reporting strengths, but there were other elements of their reporting that were less good.…”

“…'it emphasises concept'). 63 The poorest-reported standards related to reviewers stating the type of social explanation they expected to produce in line with Turner's theory, 45 their qualitative expertise and their interpretive perspectives, such as their epistemological position.…”

“…For this standard, auditors were specifically looking for evidence that reviewers had considered, for example, whether or not their new interpretation might be different if the review team consisted of individuals with different epistemological, academic, gender or cultural perspectives or, alternatively, whether or not reviewers had considered if their meta-ethnography findings were limited because of how they selected and related studies, or whether or not they had considered their final interpretation specifically in the context of disconfirming cases in their data. Among the audited publications, Galdas et al 63 was one of the few that met this standard by, for example, reflecting on the gender of its reviewers.…”

Gender differences in the factors predicting initial engagement at cardiac rehabilitation

“… 15 Gender has been shown to be a key variable in self-management decisions and preferences in a range of long-term conditions, including whether to attend CR-related support interventions. 16 However, where gender-related barriers and solutions to CR attendance have been considered in the extant literature, women have tended to be the focus. Women’s lesser participation in CR programmes is widely recognised and has been extensively reviewed, 15 17–21 with multilevel barriers including non-referral, lower education level, lack of social support and high burden of family responsibilities cited as key factors associated with poorer uptake.…”