Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) qualitative evidence syntheses, differences from reviews of intervention effectiveness and implications for guidance

C. Glenton; S. Lewin; Soo Downe; E. Paulsen; S. Munabi-Babigumira; S. Agarwal; H. Ames; S. Cooper; K. Daniels; C. Houghton; A. Karimi‐Shahanjarini; H. Moloi; W. Odendaal; E. Shakibazadeh; L. Vasudevan; A. Xyrichis; M. A. Bohren

doi:10.1177/16094069211061950

Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) qualitative evidence syntheses, differences from reviews of intervention effectiveness and implications for guidance

C. Glenton, S. Lewin, Soo Downe, E. Paulsen, S. Munabi-Babigumira, S. Agarwal, H. Ames, S. Cooper, K. Daniels, C. Houghton, A. Karimi‐Shahanjarini, H. Moloi, W. Odendaal, E. Shakibazadeh, L. Vasudevan, A. Xyrichis, M. A. Bohren

Western Sydney University

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Systematic reviews of qualitative research (‘qualitative evidence syntheses’) are increasingly popular and represent a potentially important source of information about people’s views, needs and experiences. Since 2013, Cochrane has published qualitative evidence syntheses, and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group has been involved in the majority of these reviews. But more guidance is needed on how to prepare these reviews in an environment that is more familiar with reviews of quantitative research. In this paper, we describe and reflect on how Cochrane qualitative evidence syntheses differ from reviews of intervention effectiveness and how these differences have influenced the guidance developed by the EPOC group. In particular, we discuss how it has been important to display to end users, firstly, that qualitative evidence syntheses are carried out with rigour and transparency, and secondly, that these quality standards need to reflect qualitative research traditions. We also discuss lessons that reviews of effectiveness might learn from qualitative research.

Original language	English
Number of pages	14
Journal	International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Volume	21
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211061950
Publication status	Published - 2022

Open Access - Access Right Statement

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

Access to Document

10.1177/16094069211061950

Cite this

Glenton, C., Lewin, S., Downe, S., Paulsen, E., Munabi-Babigumira, S., Agarwal, S., Ames, H., Cooper, S., Daniels, K., Houghton, C., Karimi‐Shahanjarini, A., Moloi, H., Odendaal, W., Shakibazadeh, E., Vasudevan, L., Xyrichis, A., & Bohren, M. A. (2022). Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) qualitative evidence syntheses, differences from reviews of intervention effectiveness and implications for guidance. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211061950

@article{3cad3d8323044d76b3fc1ce368618eae,

title = "Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) qualitative evidence syntheses, differences from reviews of intervention effectiveness and implications for guidance",

abstract = "Systematic reviews of qualitative research ({\textquoteleft}qualitative evidence syntheses{\textquoteright}) are increasingly popular and represent a potentially important source of information about people{\textquoteright}s views, needs and experiences. Since 2013, Cochrane has published qualitative evidence syntheses, and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group has been involved in the majority of these reviews. But more guidance is needed on how to prepare these reviews in an environment that is more familiar with reviews of quantitative research. In this paper, we describe and reflect on how Cochrane qualitative evidence syntheses differ from reviews of intervention effectiveness and how these differences have influenced the guidance developed by the EPOC group. In particular, we discuss how it has been important to display to end users, firstly, that qualitative evidence syntheses are carried out with rigour and transparency, and secondly, that these quality standards need to reflect qualitative research traditions. We also discuss lessons that reviews of effectiveness might learn from qualitative research.",

author = "C. Glenton and S. Lewin and Soo Downe and E. Paulsen and S. Munabi-Babigumira and S. Agarwal and H. Ames and S. Cooper and K. Daniels and C. Houghton and A. Karimi‐Shahanjarini and H. Moloi and W. Odendaal and E. Shakibazadeh and L. Vasudevan and A. Xyrichis and Bohren, {M. A.}",

year = "2022",

doi = "10.1177/16094069211061950",

language = "English",

volume = "21",

journal = "International Journal of Qualitative Methods",

issn = "1609-4069",

publisher = "Sage Publications",

}

Glenton, C, Lewin, S, Downe, S, Paulsen, E, Munabi-Babigumira, S, Agarwal, S, Ames, H, Cooper, S, Daniels, K, Houghton, C, Karimi‐Shahanjarini, A, Moloi, H, Odendaal, W, Shakibazadeh, E, Vasudevan, L, Xyrichis, A & Bohren, MA 2022, 'Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) qualitative evidence syntheses, differences from reviews of intervention effectiveness and implications for guidance', International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211061950

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) qualitative evidence syntheses, differences from reviews of intervention effectiveness and implications for guidance

AU - Glenton, C.

AU - Lewin, S.

AU - Downe, Soo

AU - Paulsen, E.

AU - Munabi-Babigumira, S.

AU - Agarwal, S.

AU - Ames, H.

AU - Cooper, S.

AU - Daniels, K.

AU - Houghton, C.

AU - Karimi‐Shahanjarini, A.

AU - Moloi, H.

AU - Odendaal, W.

AU - Shakibazadeh, E.

AU - Vasudevan, L.

AU - Xyrichis, A.

AU - Bohren, M. A.

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - Systematic reviews of qualitative research (‘qualitative evidence syntheses’) are increasingly popular and represent a potentially important source of information about people’s views, needs and experiences. Since 2013, Cochrane has published qualitative evidence syntheses, and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group has been involved in the majority of these reviews. But more guidance is needed on how to prepare these reviews in an environment that is more familiar with reviews of quantitative research. In this paper, we describe and reflect on how Cochrane qualitative evidence syntheses differ from reviews of intervention effectiveness and how these differences have influenced the guidance developed by the EPOC group. In particular, we discuss how it has been important to display to end users, firstly, that qualitative evidence syntheses are carried out with rigour and transparency, and secondly, that these quality standards need to reflect qualitative research traditions. We also discuss lessons that reviews of effectiveness might learn from qualitative research.

AB - Systematic reviews of qualitative research (‘qualitative evidence syntheses’) are increasingly popular and represent a potentially important source of information about people’s views, needs and experiences. Since 2013, Cochrane has published qualitative evidence syntheses, and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group has been involved in the majority of these reviews. But more guidance is needed on how to prepare these reviews in an environment that is more familiar with reviews of quantitative research. In this paper, we describe and reflect on how Cochrane qualitative evidence syntheses differ from reviews of intervention effectiveness and how these differences have influenced the guidance developed by the EPOC group. In particular, we discuss how it has been important to display to end users, firstly, that qualitative evidence syntheses are carried out with rigour and transparency, and secondly, that these quality standards need to reflect qualitative research traditions. We also discuss lessons that reviews of effectiveness might learn from qualitative research.

UR - https://hdl.handle.net/1959.7/uws:78375

U2 - 10.1177/16094069211061950

DO - 10.1177/16094069211061950

M3 - Article

SN - 1609-4069

VL - 21

JO - International Journal of Qualitative Methods

JF - International Journal of Qualitative Methods

ER -

Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) qualitative evidence syntheses, differences from reviews of intervention effectiveness and implications for guidance

Abstract

Open Access - Access Right Statement

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this