SmithBattle Lee, Lorenz Rebecca, Reangsing Chuntana, Palmer Janice L, Pitroff Gail
School of Nursing, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri.
UB School of Nursing, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York.
Nurs Inq. 2018 Oct;25(4):e12248. doi: 10.1111/nin.12248. Epub 2018 Jun 21.
Qualitative longitudinal research (QLR) provides temporal understanding of the human response to health, illness, and the life course. However, little guidance is available for conducting QLR in the nursing literature. The purpose of this review is to describe the methodological status of QLR in nursing. With the assistance of a medical librarian, we conducted a thorough search circumscribed to qualitative, longitudinal nursing studies of patients' and care-givers' experiences published between 2006 and 2016. The methodological quality of the 74 reviewed studies varied tremendously; many reports lacked sufficient detail in reporting on sampling and attrition, retention strategies, and data collection and analysis, making it difficult for readers to evaluate the credibility and transferability of study findings. Based on the strengths and limitations of the studies reviewed and findings in the literature, we provide recommendations for enhancing the reporting of the research process as a supplement to the standards for qualitative research more broadly. These recommendations are offered in the spirit of encouraging dialogue among colleagues and assisting journal reviewers and editors in their evaluation of QLR.
定性纵向研究(QLR)能让我们从时间维度理解人类对健康、疾病及人生历程的反应。然而,护理文献中关于开展QLR的指导却很少。本综述的目的是描述QLR在护理领域的方法学现状。在医学图书馆员的协助下,我们进行了全面检索,范围限定为2006年至2016年间发表的关于患者及护理人员经历的定性纵向护理研究。所审查的74项研究的方法学质量差异极大;许多报告在抽样、损耗、保留策略以及数据收集与分析的报告方面缺乏足够细节,这使得读者难以评估研究结果的可信度和可转移性。基于所审查研究的优势与局限以及文献中的发现,我们提出了一些建议,以加强对研究过程的报告,作为对更广泛定性研究标准的补充。这些建议旨在鼓励同事间展开对话,并协助期刊审稿人和编辑对QLR进行评估。