Location of Repository

A discursive analysis of contemporary literature examining qualitative research findings in evidence-based health care.

By Kylie Porritt

Abstract

The systematic review has become the ‘gold standard’ of evidence. Historically the systematic review has focused on effectiveness and as such the aggregation of results from randomised controlled trials. However health care questions are often complex requiring different research approaches to yield appropriate answers. It is acknowledged that not all research questions are amenable to the results of RCTS and as such there is now a shift towards understanding the need to incorporate research findings that acknowledge social and cultural concerns. This shift has resulted in an increased use of qualitative research findings as evidence and more specifically the systematic review of qualitative research findings. While still a relatively new area of research, the methods surrounding qualitative systematic review are fast developing. To date there are many views and debates on how this type of research should be performed. In order to gain a deeper level of understanding of these positions a discursive analysis informed by Foucault was undertaken on contemporary literature. Incorporating Foucault’s archaeological and genealogical aspects to analysis three distinct discursive formations related to the incorporation of qualitative systematic review into evidence-based practice is revealed. History of the present: a voice silenced examines the discourses surrounding the evidence-based revolution lack of reference to incorporating qualitative research findings. Rise of the silenced voice examines the discourses around positioning qualitative research findings into evidence-based practice. The final formation, Building Blocks to systematic review examines all the discourses surrounding the elements of conducting a qualitative systematic review. Finally the researcher concludes that all approaches to synthesising qualitative research are useful and have a place within health care but only reviews that follow the Five Stages of Systematic Review can be given the label of being a ‘systematic review’. Only those methods that detail an explicit, well defined question, perform a comprehensive search for research, critically assess the quality of research papers, extract and aggregate the findings of the included research papers can be given the label of being a qualitative systematic review.Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, The Joanna Briggs Institute, 201

Topics: qualitative research; systematic review; evidence-based practice
Year: 2011
OAI identifier: oai:digital.library.adelaide.edu.au:2440/69869

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (2001),ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, pp. working paper 1.
  2. (2002-2003) 'Systematic Reviews of Interpretive Research: Interpretive Data Synthesis of Processed Data',
  3. (2005a) 'Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field.', doi
  4. (2003). (2005b) 'Details of approaches to Synthesis. A methodological appendix to the paper: Systematically reviewing qualitative Page | 161 and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field.' doi
  5. (2005b) 'Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review', doi
  6. (2005). A doi
  7. (2006). Accounting for EBM: Notions of Evidence in Medicine', doi
  8. (2004). Application of systematic review methods to qualitative reseach: practical issues', doi
  9. (2002). Appraising the Evidence: Reviewing Disparate Data Systematically', doi
  10. (2005). Appraising the quality of qualitative research', doi
  11. (2004). Balancing the evidence: incorporating the synthesis of qualitative data into systematic reviews', doi
  12. (2007). Challenges in approaching metasynthesis research', doi
  13. (2003). Classifying the findings in qualitative studies', doi
  14. (2003). Creating metasummaries of qualitative findings', doi
  15. (2006). Determining guiding principles for evidence-based practice', doi
  16. (2010). Dictionary.com, viewed on 16 doi
  17. (1994). Discourse Analysis as a Research Method in Library and Information Resources', doi
  18. (2003). Discourse analysis means doing analysis: a critique of six analytic shortcomings', Discourse Analysis Online, http://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a1/antaki2002002.html Barbour, R
  19. (2006). Discourse analysis: theoretical and historical overview and review of papers in doi
  20. (2005). Discourse analysis: towards an understanding of its place in nursing', doi
  21. (2004). Discourse analysis', doi
  22. (2009). Does Qualitative Research Have a Place in Evidencebased Nursing Practice?', doi
  23. (2006). Electronic searching to locate qualitative research: evaluation of three strategies', doi
  24. (2003). Evaluating and synthesing qualitative research: the need to develop a distinctive approach', doi
  25. (2003). Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care', doi
  26. (2002). Evaluating the level of evidence in qualitative research', doi
  27. (1996). Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't', doi
  28. (2000). Evidence based practice and psychotherapy research.', doi
  29. (2004). Finding qualitative research: an evaluation of search strategies',
  30. (2002). Finding the findings in qualitative studies', doi
  31. (2002). for Evidence Based Policy and Practice. doi
  32. (1986). Foucault: A critical reader, doi
  33. (1988). Foucault: Gilles Deleuze, doi
  34. (2001). Getting evidence into practice: the work of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC)', doi
  35. (2003). Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions', doi
  36. (2006). How Can Systematic Reviews Incorporate Qualitative Research? A Critical Perspective', doi
  37. (1997). How to read a paper: Papers that go beyond numbers', doi
  38. (1997). In Foucault, Health and Medicince (Eds, Petersen, A and Bunton,
  39. (2001). In The Nature of Qualitative Evidence(Eds,
  40. (2001). Including Qualitative Research in Systematic Review: Opportunities and Problems', doi
  41. (2000). Literature review: Evolution of research methodology',
  42. (2005). Making evidence synthesis more useful for management and policy-making', doi
  43. (1988). Meta-ethnography. Synthesising qualitative studies' doi
  44. (1996). Meta-synthesis of Qualitative Findings', doi
  45. (1999). Meta-synthesis: merging qualitative stduies to develop nursing knowledge',
  46. (2003). Metasynthesis: The State of the Art - So Far', doi
  47. (1983). Michel Foucault Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics 2nd ed, The University of Chicago Press, doi
  48. (1997). Mixed messages in nursing research: their contribution to the persisting hiatus between evidence and practice.', doi
  49. (1997). Problems in the 'Evidence' of 'Evidence based medicine'', doi
  50. (1996). Public Health Research and Lay Knowledge', doi
  51. (2006). Qualitative Health Research in the Era of Evidence-Based Practice', doi
  52. (1997). Qualitative metasynthesis: issues and techniques', doi
  53. (2004). Qualitative metasynthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda', doi
  54. (1998). Qualitative research and evidence based medicine', doi
  55. (1998). Qualitative research and evidence-based healthcare',
  56. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research', doi
  57. (1998). Qualitative research methods in health technology assement: a review of the literature',
  58. (1998). Rationale and Standards for the Systematic Review of Qualitative Literature in Health Services Research', doi
  59. (2006). Reconceptualizing qualitative evidence', doi
  60. (1993). Rigor or rigor mortis: the problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited', doi
  61. (2010). Status Passage, Aldine Transaction, A Division of Transaction Publishers,
  62. (2003). Synthesis of Evidence from Research Using Diverse Study Designs: A Review of Selected Methodological Work', Health Care Reports,
  63. (2003). Synthesis through meta-ethnography: paradoxes, enhancements and possibilities', doi
  64. (2001). Systematic review from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions', doi
  65. (1997). Systematic Reviews: Critical Links in the Great Chain of Evidence', doi
  66. (1997). Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decision',
  67. (1984). The Foucault Reader: An introduction to Foucault's thought with major new unpublished material,
  68. (2006). The Four Cornerstones of Quaitative Research', doi
  69. (2005). The integrative review: updated methodology', doi
  70. (2005). The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare', doi
  71. (2005). The politics of evidence-based practice', doi
  72. (2004). The problem of appraising qualitative research',
  73. (2004). The Problem of Evidence-Based Medicine: Directions for Social Science', doi
  74. (1998). The qualitative-quantitative debate: moving from positivism and confrontation to post-positivism and reconciliation', doi
  75. (2004). Theoretical and methodological approaches in discourse analysis', doi
  76. (2007). Towards a framework for establishing rigour in discourse analysis of midwifery professionalisation', doi
  77. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research', doi
  78. (2004). Using qualitative research', doi
  79. (2006). Utility of Qualitative Research Findings in Evidence-Based Public Health Practice', doi
  80. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis', doi
  81. (2004). What counts as evidence in evidence-based practice?', doi
  82. (2002). What is the evidence on evidence-based nursing? An epistemological concern', doi
  83. (2002). When do we know that we know? Considerig the truth of research findings and the craft of qualitative research', doi
  84. (1994). Why we need qualitative research', doi
  85. (2007). Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews',

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.