LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation/NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R&D Programme
Languages: English
Types: Book
Subjects:
In the paper with which this appendix is linked we have identified four basic approaches to evidence review: narrative approaches (which may include research and non-research based evidence both qualitative and quantitative and typically deal with the findings of included studies in their own terms rather than transforming one form of 'data' into another); qualitative (which convert all available evidence into qualitative form using techniques such as 'meta-ethnography' and 'qualitative cross-case analysis'), quantitative (which convert all evidence into quantitative form using techniques such as 'quantitative case survey' or 'content analysis') and Bayesian meta-analysis and decision analysis (which can convert qualitative evidence such as preferences about different outcomes into quantitative form or 'weights' to use in quantitative synthesis). We recognise that the boundaries between these four types' of approaches is somewhat permeable: some approaches we describe as qualitative are essentially narrative in form but this typology provides a heuristic device to help us organise the material. In this appendix we provide some more detail of the approaches discussed in the paper and reference to more technical discussions where appropriate.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 7. Noblit G, Hare R. Meta-ethnography: synthesising qualitative studies. Newbury Park CA: Sage, 1988
    • 8. Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine, 1967
    • 9. Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Summing up: the science of reviewing research. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1984
    • 10. Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, Britten N, Pill R, Morgan M, Donovan J. Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med 2003;56:671-684
    • 11. Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R. Using meta-ethnography to synthesise qualitiatve research: a worked example. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 2002; 7: 209-15
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article