The Challenges of Searching for and Retrieving Qualitative Studies

Abstract

The authors' purpose in this article is to report the results of their search and retrieval efforts to date in an ongoing study to develop the procedural, analytic, and interpretive techniques to conduct qualitative meta-synthesis projects, using studies on women with HIV infection as the method case. For researchers conducting qualitative meta-synthesis projects, the ideal goal is to retrieve all of the relevant studies in a field--not simply a sample of them. Bates's model of berrypicking is used as the framework to describe the techniques used to conduct these searches. The authors discuss, in particular, the challenges of working with bibliographic databases, including choosing which databases to search, learning about the idiosyncrasies of working with each database, developing a list of search terms, and refining inclusion criteria regarding which studies to include in the meta-synthesis. Recommendations are given for searchers and writers of qualitative research.

Finding a needle in the haystack: performing an in-depth literature search to answer a clinical question

“…Principles and processes for assessment decision making are published, including a figure diagram for a qualitative metasynthesis. 52 These procedures are relevant to any endeavor requiring assessment of citations from searches. 52 If a decision can be made to discard based on title or abstract, the citation can be removed completely and the whole article need not be evaluated.…”

“…52 These procedures are relevant to any endeavor requiring assessment of citations from searches. 52 If a decision can be made to discard based on title or abstract, the citation can be removed completely and the whole article need not be evaluated. For example, if a search was focused on geriatric patients and falls prevention, and one of the citation titles indicates falls prevention in adult, nongeriatric patients, that record can be discarded, based on identification of a sample that mismatches the intended review.…”

Systematic reviews: from ‘bare bones’ reviews to policy relevance

“…The argument is that when the aim is theory building, rather than statistical generalisation, conceptual saturation and purposive sampling to identify a variety of studies might be more appropriate (Thomas and Harden 2008). However, others maintain that, as with systematic reviews of quantitative evidence, the ideal goal of qualitative synthesis is to draw from all relevant studies (Barroso et al 2003) and that due to the difficulties searching for qualitative studies, over-inclusive search strategies might be necessary to avoid missing potentially relevant studies (Shaw et al 2004).…”

A Meta-Analysis Framework and Its Application for Exploring the Driving Causes to Social Vulnerability

“…For example, in the research of Barroso et al (2003), when taking a meta-analysis on HIV infection, around 20% are excluded (Barroso, Gollop et al 2003). In the research of Jones (2004) on pragmatic health service, 132 papers were read in full, but only 17 met the inclusion criteria.…”