İyi Bir Kalitatif Kanıt Sentezi Nasıl Yazılmalı?

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 186 - 205, 15.08.2022

Nursan Çınar , Seda Tecik

https://doi.org/10.54803/sauhsd.1086071

Öz

İyi bir kalitatif derleme, ilgili fenomen ve araştırma sorusu için var olan tüm kanıtların sentezlenerek okuyucuya sunulduğu bulunmaz bir kaynaktır. Çok kapsamlı bir literatür taramasının yapılması ve yazarın önyargısının daha düşük olması nedeniyle sistematik derlemeler altın standart olarak kabul edilmektedir. Son yıllarda nitel araştırmanın özellikle politika ve uygulamayı etkileme gücünün daha fazla farkına varılması ile nitel araştırmanın sistematik derlemeleri olarak da bilinen nitel kanıt sentezlerine olan ihtiyaç daha fazla hissedilmeye başlanmıştır. Nitel kanıt sentezleri kanıt yönünden güçlü olmasıyla beraber, araştırma yöntemi uygun olarak tasarlanmadığında ve raporlanmadığında yanlılık riskini artırır. Niteliksel kanıt sentezleri metodolojik olarak geleneksel sistematik derlemelerden farklılıklar gösterir. Bu makalede iyi bir kalitatif kanıt sentezi yazımı ile ilgili bilgiler literatür doğrultusunda paylaşılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kalitatif Kanıt Sentezi, metodoloji, raporlama

How To Write a Good Qualitative Evidence Synthesis?

Öz

A good qualitative review is an invaluable resource, synthesizing and presenting all available evidence for the interesting phenomenon and research question. Systematic reviews are considered the gold standard because of a comprehensive literature review and lower author bias. In recent years, with the increasing awareness of the power of qualitative research to influence policy and practice, the need for qualitative evidence syntheses, also known as systematic reviews of qualitative research, has begun to be felt more. Although qualitative evidence syntheses are strong in terms of evidence, they increase the risk of bias when the research method is not properly designed and reported. Qualitative evidence syntheses differ methodologically from traditional systematic reviews. In this article, information about writing a good qualitative evidence synthesis is shared in line with the literature.

Kaynakça

• 1. Çınar N. İyi bir sistematik derleme nasıl yazılmalı? Online Türk Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2021;6(2):310-314.
• 2. Booth A. Qualitative evidence synthesis. In: Facey K, Ploug Hansen H, Single A (eds.). Patient Involvementin Health Technology Assessment. Adis, Singapore. Springer Nature. 2017.pp.187-199.
• 3. Carroll C. Qualitative evidence synthesis to improve implementation of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 2017;356:j80. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j80
• 4. Glenton C, Lewin S, Norris S. Chapter 15: Using evidence from qualitative research to develop WHO guidelines. In: Norris S (ed.). World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development. 2nd. ed. Geneva. 2016. p.183-200.
• 5. Yıldırım A, Şimşek H. Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. 11. Basım. Seçkin Yayıncılık. 2018. s.35-64.
• 6. Ames H, Glenton C, Lewin S. Purposive sampling in a qualitative evidence synthesis: A worked example from a synthesis on parental perceptions of vaccination communication. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):26.
• 7. Noyes J, Booth A, Cargo M, Flemming K, Harden A, Harris J, et al. Chapter 21: Qualitative evidence. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (eds.). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. (Erişim Tarihi: 03 Mart 2022).
• 8. Gümüş S. Beşinci Kısım: Üçüncü Bölüm: Nitel Araştırmaların Sistematik Derlemesi: Meta-Sentez. Beycioğlu K, Özer N ve Kondakçı Y. (eds.). İçinde: Eğitim Yönetiminde Araştırma. Pegem Akademi, Ankara. 2018. s.533-551.
• 9. Noyes J, Booth A, Cargo M, Flemming K, Garsid R, Hannes K, et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 1: Introduction. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:35-38.
• 10. Chapter 6: Incorporating Qualitative Evidence in or Along side Effectiveness Reviews. In: Systematic Reviews, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. 2008. p.228-232.
• 11. Lockwood C, Porrit K, Munn Z, Rittenmeyer L, Salmond S, Bjerrum M, et al. Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (eds.). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global (Erişim Tarihi: 03 Mart 2022)
• 12. Noyes J, Booth A, Flemming K, Garside R, Harden A, Lewin S, et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 3: Methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:49-58.
• 13. France EF, Ring N, Noyes J, Maxwell M, Jepson R, Duncan E, et al. Protocol-developing meta-ethnography reporting guidelines (eMERGe). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:103.
• 14. Flemming K, Booth A, Garside R, Tunçalp Ö, Noyes J. Qualitative evidence synthesis for complex interventions and guideline development: clarification of the purpose, designs and relevant methods. BMJ Global Health. 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000882.
• 15. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:45.
• 16. Harris JL, Booth A, Cargo M, Hannes K, Harden A, Flemming K, et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 2: Methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:39-48.
• 17. Booth A, Harris J, Croot E, Springett J, Campbell F, Wilkins E. Towards a methodology for cluster searching to provide conceptual and contextual "richness" for systematic reviews of complex interventions: Case study (CLUSTER). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:118.
• 18. Booth A, Carroll C, Ilott I, Low LL, Cooper K. Desperately seeking dissonance: Identifying the disconfirming case in qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2013;23(1):126-141.
• 19. Booth A, Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Toews I, Noyes J, et al. GRADE-CERQual Coordinating Team. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 7: Understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):12.
• 20. Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Moore G, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh E. Formulating questions to explore complex interventions within qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Global Health. 2019;4(1):e001107. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001107.
• 21. Booth A. Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: A structured methodological review. Syst Rev. 2016;5:74.
• 22. Karaçam Z. Sistematik derleme metodolojisi: Sistematik derleme hazırlamak için bir rehber. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi. 2013;6(1):26-33.
• 23. Sandelowski M, Docherty S, Emden C. Focus on qualitative methods. Qualitative meta synthesis: Issues and techniques. Res Nurs Health. 1997;20(4):365-371.
• 24. Uman LS. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;20(1):57-59.
• 25. Flemming K, Booth A, Hannes K, Cargo M, Noyes J. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 6: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation evidence syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:79-85.
• 26. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700
• 27. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181.
• 28. Dixon-Woods M, Booth A, Sutton AJ. Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports. Qual Res. 2007;7(3):375-422.
• 29. Hong QN, Gonzalez-Reyes A, Pluye P. Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(3):459-467.
• 30. Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Rashidian A, Wainwright M, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: Introduction to the series. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):2.
• 31. Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Carlsen B, Colvin CJ, Gülmezoglu M, et al. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: An approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PloS Med. 2015;12(10),e1001895, doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001895
• 32. Glenton C, Bohren MA, Downe S, Paulsen EJ, Lewin S, on behalf of Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). EPOC Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Protocol and review template. Version 1.3. EPOC Resources for review authors. Oslo: Norwegian Institute of Public Health; 2022. Available from: http://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-specific-resources-review-authors (ErişimTarihi: 10 Mart 2022).