首页> 外文OA文献 >A discursive analysis of contemporary literature examining qualitative research findings in evidence-based health care.
【2h】

A discursive analysis of contemporary literature examining qualitative research findings in evidence-based health care.

机译:对当代文献进行话语分析,研究基于证据的医疗保健中的定性研究结果。

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

The systematic review has become the ‘gold standard’ of evidence. Historically the systematic review has focused on effectiveness and as such the aggregation of results from randomised controlled trials. However health care questions are often complex requiring different research approaches to yield appropriate answers. It is acknowledged that not all research questions are amenable to the results of RCTS and as such there is now a shift towards understanding the need to incorporate research findings that acknowledge social and cultural concerns. This shift has resulted in an increased use of qualitative research findings as evidence and more specifically the systematic review of qualitative research findings. While still a relatively new area of research, the methods surrounding qualitative systematic review are fast developing. To date there are many views and debates on how this type of research should be performed. In order to gain a deeper level of understanding of these positions a discursive analysis informed by Foucault was undertaken on contemporary literature. Incorporating Foucault’s archaeological and genealogical aspects to analysis three distinct discursive formations related to the incorporation of qualitative systematic review into evidence-based practice is revealed. History of the present: a voice silenced examines the discourses surrounding the evidence-based revolution lack of reference to incorporating qualitative research findings. Rise of the silenced voice examines the discourses around positioning qualitative research findings into evidence-based practice. The final formation, Building Blocks to systematic review examines all the discourses surrounding the elements of conducting a qualitative systematic review. Finally the researcher concludes that all approaches to synthesising qualitative research are useful and have a place within health care but only reviews that follow the Five Stages of Systematic Review can be given the label of being a ‘systematic review’. Only those methods that detail an explicit, well defined question, perform a comprehensive search for research, critically assess the quality of research papers, extract and aggregate the findings of the included research papers can be given the label of being a qualitative systematic review.
机译:系统的审查已成为证据的“黄金标准”。从历史上看,系统评价的重点是有效性,因此,对随机对照试验的结果进行汇总。但是,医疗保健问题通常很复杂,需要不同的研究方法来得出适当的答案。众所周知,并非所有研究问题都适合于RCTS的结果,因此,目前正在朝着理解需要纳入承认社会和文化关注的研究结果的方向转变。这种转变导致越来越多地使用定性研究结果作为证据,更具体地说是对定性研究结果进行系统的审查。尽管仍是一个相对较新的研究领域,但围绕定性系统评价的方法正在迅速发展。迄今为止,关于应如何进行这类研究有许多观点和辩论。为了加深对这些立场的理解,福柯对当代文学进行了话语分析。揭示了将福柯的考古学和家谱学方面的内容进行分析,以分析与将定性系统评价结合到基于证据的实践中有关的三种不同的话语形式。现在的历史:沉默的声音考察了围绕循证革命的话语,缺乏结合定性研究结果的参考。沉默之声的兴起检验了关于将定性研究结果置于循证实践中的论述。最后的组成部分,即“系统回顾的基础”,考察了围绕进行定性系统回顾的要素的所有论述。最后,研究人员得出结论,所有综合定性研究的方法都是有用的,并且在医疗保健领域中占有一席之地,但是只有遵循系统评价五个阶段的评价才能被标记为“系统评价”。只有那些详细描述一个明确的,明确定义的问题,对研究进行全面搜索,严格评估研究论文的质量,提取和汇总所包括研究论文的发现的方法,才能被定性为系统的综述。

著录项

  • 作者

    Porritt Kylie;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2011
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 {"code":"en","name":"English","id":9}
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

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