Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Qual Health Res. 2012 Oct;22(10):1435-43. doi: 10.1177/1049732312452938. Epub 2012 Jul 24.
Standardized systematic search strategies facilitate rigor in research. Current search tools focus on retrieval of quantitative research. In this article we address issues relating to using existing search strategy tools, most typically the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) formulation for defining key elements of a review question, when searching for qualitative and mixed methods research studies. An alternative search strategy tool for qualitative/mixed methods research is outlined: SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type). We used both the SPIDER and PICO search strategy tools with a qualitative research question. We have used the SPIDER tool to advance thinking beyond PICO in its suitable application to qualitative and mixed methods research. However, we have highlighted once more the need for improved indexing of qualitative articles in databases. To constitute a viable alternative to PICO, SPIDER needs to be refined and tested on a wider range of topics.
标准化的系统检索策略有助于研究的严谨性。目前的检索工具主要侧重于检索定量研究。本文讨论了在检索定性和混合方法研究时使用现有检索策略工具（最典型的是 PICO，即研究问题的关键要素的定义：人群、干预、比较、结局）的相关问题。本文概述了定性/混合方法研究的另一种检索策略工具：SPIDER（样本、感兴趣的现象、设计、评估、研究类型）。我们使用了 SPIDER 和 PICO 检索策略工具来解决定性研究问题。我们已经使用 SPIDER 工具在其适用于定性和混合方法研究的范围内，超越了 PICO 进行思考。然而，我们再次强调了需要改进数据库中定性文章的索引。为了成为 PICO 的可行替代方案，SPIDER 需要在更广泛的主题上进行改进和测试。
