143
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research : A Synthesis of Recommendations

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Emerging Criteria for Quality in Qualitative and Interpretive Research

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education.

            Formal qualitative synthesis is the process of pooling qualitative and mixed-method research data, and then drawing conclusions regarding the collective meaning of the research. Qualitative synthesis is regularly used within systematic reviews in the health professions literature, although such use has been heavily debated in the general literature. This controversy arises in part from the inherent tensions found when generalisations are derived from in-depth studies that are heavily context-dependent. We explore three representative qualitative synthesis methodologies: thematic analysis; meta-ethnography, and realist synthesis. These can be understood across two dimensions: integrative to interpretative, and idealist to realist. Three examples are used to illustrate the relative strengths and limitations of these approaches. Against a backdrop of controversy and diverse methodologies, readers must take a critical stand when reading literature reviews that use qualitative synthesis to derive their findings. We argue that notions of qualitative rigour such as transparency and acknowledgment of the researchers' stance should be applied to qualitative synthesis. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2013.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The experience and impact of chronic disease peer support interventions: a qualitative synthesis.

              Our aim was to synthesise qualitative literature about the perceived impact and experience of participating in peer support interventions for individuals with chronic disease. We carried out a meta-ethnography to synthesize 25 papers meeting specific inclusion criteria. Thirteen concepts were identified that reflected participants' perceptions of the experience and impact of intervention participation. These were brought together in a conceptual model that highlighted both positive and negative perceptions, while also indicating if specific experiences and impacts had greater pertinence for mentors, mentees, or were mutually experienced. Although peer support interventions may establish uneven power relationships between mentors and mentees, there is also potential for initially asymmetrical relationships to become more symmetrical over time. Our synthesis suggests that emotional support is particularly valued when delivered under conditions that do not merely reproduce biomedical hierarchies of power. This synthesis suggests that those developing and implementing peer support interventions need to be sensitive to their potential negative effects. They will need to manage the tension between the hierarchical and egalitarian aspects of peer support interventions, and consider the impact on both mentors and mentees. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Academic Medicine
                Academic Medicine
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                1040-2446
                2014
                September 2014
                : 89
                : 9
                : 1245-1251
                Article
                10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
                24979285
                931dcade-7328-4b76-ad4a-7d3ba6bd43fc
                © 2014
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article