A methodological systematic review of what’s wrong with meta-ethnography reporting.

France, Emma F; Ring, Nicola; Thomas, Rebecca; Noyes, Jane; Maxwell, Margaret; Jepson, Ruth

Abstract

Background: Syntheses 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.

Methods: Methodological 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.

Results: Meta-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.

Conclusions: We 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.

Citation

France, E. F., Ring, N., Thomas, R., Noyes, J., Maxwell, M., & Jepson, R. (2014). A methodological systematic review of what’s wrong with meta-ethnography reporting. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(1), https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-119

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Oct 27, 2014
• Online Publication Date: Nov 19, 2014
• Publication Date: 2014-12
• Deposit Date: Aug 7, 2017
• Publicly Available Date: Aug 7, 2017
• Journal: BMC Medical Research Methodology
• Publisher: BMC
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 14
• Issue: 1
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-119
• Keywords: Meta-ethnography, Systematic review, Qualitative health research, Reporting, Qualitative synthesis,
• Public URL: http://researchrepository.napier.ac.uk/Output/973007
• Contract Date: Aug 7, 2017