首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Systematic Reviews >Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review
【2h】

Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review

机译:寻找定性研究以纳入系统评价:结构化方法学评价

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

BackgroundQualitative systematic reviews or qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are increasingly recognised as a way to enhance the value of systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical trials. They can explain the mechanisms by which interventions, evaluated within trials, might achieve their effect. They can investigate differences in effects between different population groups. They can identify which outcomes are most important to patients, carers, health professionals and other stakeholders. QES can explore the impact of acceptance, feasibility, meaningfulness and implementation-related factors within a real world setting and thus contribute to the design and further refinement of future interventions. To produce valid, reliable and meaningful QES requires systematic identification of relevant qualitative evidence. Although the methodologies of QES, including methods for information retrieval, are well-documented, little empirical evidence exists to inform their conduct and reporting.
机译:背景技术定性系统评价或定性证据合成(QES)越来越被认为是提高临床试验系统评价(SR)价值的一种方式。他们可以解释在试验中评估的干预措施可能达到其效果的机制。他们可以调查不同人群之间影响的差异。他们可以确定哪些结果对患者,护理人员,卫生专业人员和其他利益相关者最重要。 QES可以探索现实环境中接受,可行性,意义和与实施相关的因素的影响,从而有助于设计和进一步完善未来的干预措施。要产生有效,可靠和有意义的QES,需要系统地识别相关的定性证据。尽管QES的方法论(包括信息检索方法)已得到充分文献证明,但很少有经验证据可以为他们的行为和报告提供依据。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号