12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A mega-ethnography of eleven qualitative evidence syntheses exploring the experience of living with chronic non-malignant pain

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Background

          Each year over five million people develop chronic non-malignant pain and can experience healthcare as an adversarial struggle. The aims of this study were: (1) to bring together qualitative evidence syntheses that explore patients’ experience of living with chronic non-malignant pain and develop conceptual understanding of what it is like to live with chronic non-malignant pain for improved healthcare; (2) to undertake the first mega-ethnography of qualitative evidence syntheses using the methods of meta-ethnography.

          Methods

          We used the seven stages of meta-ethnography refined for large studies. The innovation of mega-ethnography is to use conceptual findings from qualitative evidence syntheses as primary data. We searched 7 bibliographic databases from inception until February 2016 to identify qualitative evidence syntheses that explored patients’ experience of living with chronic non-malignant pain.

          Results

          We identified 82 potential studies from 556 titles, screened 34 full text articles and included 11 qualitative evidence syntheses synthesising a total of 187 qualitative studies reporting more than 5000 international participants living with chronic pain. We abstracted concepts into 7 conceptual categories: (1) my life is impoverished and confined; (2) struggling against my body to be me; (3) the quest for the diagnostic ‘holy grail’; (4) lost personal credibility; (5) trying to keep up appearances; (6) need to be treated with dignity; and (7) deciding to end the quest for the grail is not easy. Each conceptual category was supported by at least 7 of the 11 qualitative evidence syntheses.

          Conclusions

          This is the first mega-ethnography, or synthesis of qualitative evidence syntheses using the methods of meta-ethnography. Findings help us to understand that the decision to end the quest for a diagnosis can leave patients feeling vulnerable and this may contribute to the adversarial nature of the clinical encounter. This knowledge demonstrates that treating a patient with a sense that they are worthy of care and hearing their story is not an adjunct to, but integral to health care.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0392-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          The Quality of Qualitative Research

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

            Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care

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

              Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods.

              The limitations of traditional forms of systematic review in making optimal use of all forms of evidence are increasingly evident, especially for policy-makers and practitioners. There is an urgent need for robust ways of incorporating qualitative evidence into systematic reviews. In this paper we provide a brief overview and critique of a selection of strategies for synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence, ranging from techniques that are largely qualitative and interpretive through to techniques that are largely quantitative and integrative. A range of methods is available for synthesising diverse forms of evidence. These include narrative summary, thematic analysis, grounded theory, meta-ethnography, meta-study, realist synthesis, Miles and Huberman's data analysis techniques, content analysis, case survey, qualitative comparative analysis and Bayesian meta-analysis. Methods vary in their strengths and weaknesses, ability to deal with qualitative and quantitative forms of evidence, and type of question for which they are most suitable. We identify a number of procedural, conceptual and theoretical issues that need to be addressed in moving forward with this area, and emphasise the need for existing techniques to be evaluated and modified, rather than inventing new approaches.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Francine.toye@ouh.nhs.uk
                Kate.Seers@warwick.ac.uk
                Erin.hannink@ouh.nhs.uk
                Karen.barker@ouh.nhs.uk
                Journal
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Medical Research Methodology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2288
                1 August 2017
                1 August 2017
                2017
                : 17
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0440 1440, GRID grid.410556.3, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, , Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, ; Oxford, UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8948, GRID grid.4991.5, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, , University of Oxford, ; Oxford, UK
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0000 8809 1613, GRID grid.7372.1, Royal College of Nursing Research Institute, Warwick Medical School, , University of Warwick, ; Coventry, UK
                Article
                392
                10.1186/s12874-017-0392-7
                5540410
                28764666
                eb6038f9-8d3c-40dd-adae-3f2bd1483f8f
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Comments

                Comment on this article