...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of advanced nursing >Use of unsolicited first-person written illness narratives in research: systematic review.
【24h】

Use of unsolicited first-person written illness narratives in research: systematic review.

机译:在研究中使用未经请求的第一人称书面疾病叙述:系统评价。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

AIM: This paper is a report of a methodological systematic review conducted to critically analyze the use of unsolicited first-person written illness narratives for research purposes. BACKGROUND: Documenting illness experiences through written narratives enables individuals to record the impact of illness on themselves and those closest to them. In health research, unsolicited first-person written illness narratives are recognized increasingly as legitimate data sources. To date there has been no critical evaluation of the method. DATA SOURCES: The ISI Web of Knowledge; CINAHL; PubMed; MEDLINE; PsycINFO; Science Direct; Cochrane Library databases and the internet metasearch engine 'Dogpile' were searched for the period up to 2009. The search terms were: 'patient experience', 'narratives', 'autobiography', 'pathography', 'written narratives', 'illness narratives', 'internet', 'published', 'unsolicited'. REVIEW METHODS: Recommendations within the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance informed the review. Eligible studies were evaluated according to inclusion/exclusion criteria. The data were extracted by one reviewer and monitored by the second reviewer. FINDINGS: Eighteen papers met the inclusion criteria, 12 from the original search in 2008 and six from the updated search in October 2009. Nine used unpublished (internet) narratives, eight used published (print) accounts and one drew on both genres. The method has been used to explore a wide range of illness experiences. There was lack of agreement on key terminology. Methodological issues were often poorly-described, and confused ethical stances were reported. CONCLUSION: The lack of methodological detail in published papers requires attention if this method is to be used effectively in healthcare research. The confused ethical stance adopted needs to be addressed and clarified. A theoretical conceptual framework to define and describe the method accurately is urgently required.
机译:目的:本文是对批判性分析未经请求的第一人称书面疾病叙述进行研究目的的方法系统审查的报告。背景:通过书面叙述记录疾病经验使个人能够记录疾病对自己的影响以及最接近他们的人。在卫生研究中,未经请求的第一人称书面疾病叙述被认为是合法的数据来源的认可。迄今为止,该方法没有任何关键评估。数据来源:知识的ISI网站; CINAHL; pubmed; Medline; psycinfo;科学直接; Cochrane图书馆数据库和Internet Metasearch引擎“Dogpile”在2009年的时间内被搜查。搜索条件是:“患者体验”,“叙述”,“自传”,“公园”,“书面叙事”,“叙事”,“疾病叙事” ','互联网','发布','未经请求'。审查方法:中央建议,用于评论和传播指导,告知审查。根据包含/排除标准评估合格的研究。数据由一个审阅者提取并由第二次审阅者监督。调查结果:十八篇论文达到了纳入标准,从2008年的原始搜索中达到了12个,从2009年10月的更新搜索中的六个。九次使用未发表的(互联网)叙述,八个已发表的(印刷)账户,其中八个使用的叙述和一个人在两种类型上画出一个。该方法已被用于探索各种疾病经历。关键术语缺乏一致意见。方法论问题通常是较差的,据报道困惑的道德立场。结论:如果在医疗保健研究中有效地使用这种方法,则出版论文中缺乏方法论细节需要注意。需要解决和澄清所采用的混乱的道德立场。迫切需要一种定义和描述方法的理论概念框架。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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