DeJean Deirdre, Giacomini Mita, Simeonov Dorina, Smith Andrea
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Qual Health Res. 2016 Aug;26(10):1307-17. doi: 10.1177/1049732316644429. Epub 2016 Apr 26.
Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies increasingly use reviews of qualitative research as evidence for evaluating social, experiential, and ethical aspects of health technologies. We systematically searched three bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Social Science Citation Index [SSCI]) using published search filters or "hedges" and our hybrid filter to identify qualitative research studies pertaining to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and early breast cancer. The search filters were compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and precision. Our screening by title and abstract revealed that qualitative research constituted only slightly more than 1% of all published research on each health topic. The performance of the published search filters varied greatly across topics and databases. Compared with existing search filters, our hybrid filter demonstrated a consistently high sensitivity across databases and topics, and minimized the resource-intensive process of sifting through false positives. We identify opportunities for qualitative health researchers to improve the uptake of qualitative research into evidence-informed policy making.
卫生技术评估(HTA)机构越来越多地使用定性研究综述作为评估卫生技术的社会、体验和伦理方面的证据。我们使用已发表的搜索过滤器或“对冲”以及我们的混合过滤器系统地搜索了三个文献数据库(MEDLINE、CINAHL和社会科学引文索引[SSCI]),以识别与慢性阻塞性肺疾病和早期乳腺癌相关的定性研究。对搜索过滤器的敏感性、特异性和精确性进行了比较。我们通过标题和摘要进行筛选发现,定性研究在每个健康主题的所有已发表研究中仅占略高于1%。已发表的搜索过滤器的性能在不同主题和数据库之间差异很大。与现有的搜索过滤器相比,我们的混合过滤器在数据库和主题中都表现出始终如一的高敏感性,并最大限度地减少了筛选误报的资源密集型过程。我们确定了定性健康研究人员在将定性研究纳入循证决策方面提高采用率的机会。