Guest Editor’s Introduction to Special Issue: The Science and Practice of Research Synthesis

Littell, Julia H.

doi:10.5243/jsswr.2013.19

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 59 publications

(62 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A limited body of evidence further meant that our CMOs are by no means exhaustive and do not necessarily include all processes involved in complaints management (eg, there was insufficient evidence on investigative procedures involved in complaint handling). Furthermore, most of the selection, extraction and appraisal of literature was conducted independently by a single researcher (JD) leading to potential bias 111–113. Measures were taken accordingly to maximise standardisation (eg, data extraction form, rigid appraisal criteria).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from complaints in healthcare: a realist review of academic literature, policy evidence and front-line insights

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionA global rise in patient complaints has been accompanied by growing research to effectively analyse complaints for safer, more patient-centric care. Most patients and families complain to improve the quality of healthcare, yet progress has been complicated by a system primarily designed for case-by-case complaint handling.AimTo understand how to effectively integrate patient-centric complaint handling with quality monitoring and improvement.MethodLiterature screening and patient codesign shaped the review’s aim in the first stage of this three-stage review. Ten sources were searched including academic databases and policy archives. In the second stage, 13 front-line experts were interviewed to develop initial practice-based programme theory. In the third stage, evidence identified in the first stage was appraised based on rigour and relevance, and selected to refine programme theory focusing on what works, why and under what circumstances.ResultsA total of 74 academic and 10 policy sources were included. The review identified 12 mechanisms to achieve: patient-centric complaint handling and system-wide quality improvement. The complaint handling pathway includes (1) access of information; (2) collaboration with support and advocacy services; (3) staff attitude and signposting; (4) bespoke responding; and (5) public accountability. The improvement pathway includes (6) a reliable coding taxonomy; (7) standardised training and guidelines; (8) a centralised informatics system; (9) appropriate data sampling; (10) mixed-methods spotlight analysis; (11) board priorities and leadership; and (12) just culture.DiscussionIf healthcare settings are better supported to report, analyse and use complaints data in a standardised manner, complaints could impact on care quality in important ways. This review has established a range of evidence-based, short-term recommendations to achieve this.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from complaints in healthcare: a realist review of academic literature, policy evidence and front-line insights

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Primarily, to strengthen conclusions and reduce uncertainty (Littell et al, 2008;Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Secondarily, although the number of published systematic reviews has increased in the social sciences, traditional narratives or nonsystematic literature reviews continue to hold sway (Bearman et al, 2012;Littell, 2013). Their value, together with their increased popularity, suggests that systematic reviews are invaluable tools for advancing evidence-based knowledge.…”

Section: Systematic Review: Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Quality in Systematic Literature Reviews: A Study of Novice Rater Training

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated performance variability when graduate students critically appraised original studies from a systematic review. Fourteen doctoral students from different academic programs, with no systematic review experience, received training on the Methodological Quality Questionnaire (MQQ) rating scale. Participants were mostly male (71%) and non-native English speakers (79%). Each rater was randomly assigned one original study to independently assess using the MQQ. Their scores were compared to an expert rater. Statistical analysis comprised the following: percentage of agreement (POA), Kappa coefficient, and Kendall’s tau-b correlation. On the completed MQQ rating scale, 43% of the novice raters had a POA of 78% or higher with the expert rater. From this case study, a guide for improving training on methodological quality assessment was developed. Benefits include the following: (a) developing and supporting critical reasoning as well as problem-solving skills and (b) increasing research skills and competencies in the systematic review process.

show abstract

“…In contrast to quantitative systematic review in which a hierarchy of methodological approaches is widely agreed upon, evaluation of quality and 'rigor' in qualitative methods is widely debated (Campbell et al, 2003;Hammersley, 2007;Higgins and Green, 2011). Littell (2013) raises concerns that if a priori criteria of inclusion/exclusion are not established, researchers may be influenced by personal preferences and/or ideological views. Other scholars, however, reject the application of a priori checklists to rank the quality of qualitative studies all together (Dixon-Woods et al, 2006;Sandelowski et al, 2007).…”

Section: Criteria For Inclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making qualitative data more visible in policy: a critical appraisal of meta-synthesis

Horton

2019

Qualitative Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores meta-synthesis, the systematic review, and integration of qualitative findings, as a tool to advance the visibility, accessibility, and policy and programmatic relevance of quantitative data in applied fields like international development. I draw on my experiences of synthesizing 30 qualitative cases for a book on microfinance and women’s empowerment to examine the benefits and challenges of this approach and to provide practical guidance. I identify the conditions where meta-synthesis can make the strongest contributions and ways in which it can enhance the robustness of qualitative research. I also detail the tensions of between meta-synthesis appeals to efficiency and standardization and the core epistemological and ethical commitments of qualitative methods. In practice, these tensions were most apparent in issues of primary case inclusion and selection, incorporation of context, and the ethics of voice and representation.

show abstract

Guest Editor’s Introduction to Special Issue: The Science and Practice of Research Synthesis

Cited by 9 publications

References 59 publications

Learning from complaints in healthcare: a realist review of academic literature, policy evidence and front-line insights

Learning from complaints in healthcare: a realist review of academic literature, policy evidence and front-line insights

Assessing Quality in Systematic Literature Reviews: A Study of Novice Rater Training

Making qualitative data more visible in policy: a critical appraisal of meta-synthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About