Woodend A Kirsten
Ecole des sciences infirmières, School of Nursing, Université d'Ottawa, University of Ottawa, 451, chemin Smyth Road, RGN3052, Ottawa, ON K1H 8M5.
Can J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2007;17(3):32-6.
Guidelines for critiquing systematic reviews and meta-syntheses are presented in Polit and Beck's (2008) most recent research text. These have been loosely used to review the two study examples. Although the study by Lefler and Bondy (2004) is titled a meta-synthesis, it is clearly an integrative review and, thus, helps to illustrate the similarities and differences between these two approaches. The Paterson study (2001) suffers, as many qualitative reports do, from a restriction on length, making it difficult to completely assess all aspects of the study. Having said this, the purpose of Paterson's study could have been stated more clearly and the search strategy and inclusion/exclusion criteria could have been more explicit. In both reviews, issues of quality appraisal should have been dealt with in more detail, or reasons for not undertaking a quality appraisal discussed. While Paterson discusses at length the "state of the knowledge" in meta-synthesis, her description of the actual analysis done was very brief. Neither of the studies specifically addressed issues of rigour and Lefler and Bondy only briefly discussed study limitations. No limitations were discussed in the Paterson paper (2001). There are limitations to all research studies and it is important to interpret a study's findings while acknowledging how the limitations affect their interpretation. Lefler and Bondy identify three types of factors that may delay treatment-seeking in women who have had a myocardial infarction and have suggested further research that should be undertaken. Paterson (2001) has proposed a model of chronic illness that can assist nurses in supporting patients with chronic illness. Two studies of potential interest to cardiovascular nurses have been used to illustrate a relatively new research method -- meta-synthesis. Although there are still many methodological questions, the body of knowledge about meta-synthesis is sufficiently developed and documented to permit both novice and experienced researchers to undertake one. Meta-synthesis is an important way of making the large body of qualitative nursing research available to practising nurses and policymakers, as well as generating higher levels of understanding about phenomena of interest to nursing science.
波利特和贝克(2008年)最新的研究文本中介绍了对系统评价和元整合进行批判性评价的指南。这些指南已被大致用于对这两个研究实例进行评价。虽然勒夫勒和邦迪(2004年)的研究标题为元整合,但它显然是一项整合性评价,因此有助于说明这两种方法之间的异同。与许多定性报告一样,帕特森的研究(2001年)也受到篇幅限制,这使得难以全面评估该研究的所有方面。话虽如此,帕特森研究的目的本可以表述得更清晰,检索策略以及纳入/排除标准本可以更明确。在这两项评价中,质量评估问题本应得到更详细的处理,或者应讨论不进行质量评估的原因。虽然帕特森在元整合中详细讨论了“知识状态”,但她对实际分析的描述非常简短。这两项研究都没有专门探讨严谨性问题,勒夫勒和邦迪只是简要讨论了研究局限性。帕特森的论文(2001年)中没有讨论任何局限性。所有研究都有局限性,在解释研究结果时,认识到这些局限性如何影响对结果的解释很重要。勒夫勒和邦迪确定了三类可能会延迟心肌梗死女性寻求治疗的因素,并建议应进一步开展研究。帕特森(2001年)提出了一种慢性病模型,可帮助护士为慢性病患者提供支持。心血管护士可能感兴趣的两项研究被用来阐释一种相对较新的研究方法——元整合。尽管仍然存在许多方法学问题,但关于元整合的知识体系已得到充分发展和记录,使新手和经验丰富的研究人员都能够进行元整合。元整合是一种重要方式,能让执业护士和政策制定者获取大量定性护理研究成果,同时加深对护理科学感兴趣的现象的理解。