Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California.
Louis and Gabi Weisfeld School of Social Work, Faculty of Social Sciences, Bar-ILan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Gerontologist. 2019 Nov 16;59(6):e791-e801. doi: 10.1093/geront/gny134.
Gerontologists have long been interested in longitudinal qualitative research (LQR), yet ambiguity remains about best practices. The purpose of this review was to conduct a qualitative evidence synthesis to identify strengths and limitations in existing gerontological LQR.
We searched for studies published in English before September 2017, using longitudinal qualitative methods and focusing on gerontology. We searched the following databases: PubMed and ProQuest. This was followed up by a snowball search to identify additional LQR articles that were not gerontologically focused but provided conceptual or methodological information to enhance gerontological LQR. Article titles and abstracts were reviewed, and selected articles were independently evaluated by all authors and summarized in a descriptive matrix based on design, analysis, and strengths and limitations.
Our literature search resulted in 225 articles, which was then narrowed to 71 articles from 47 different journals based on our inclusion/exclusion criteria. LQR in gerontology varies considerably by study design and analysis approach. LQR design considerations involve number of time points and duration; rapport and retention; and consistent or different sampling, data collection, and measures. LQR analysis considerations involve synchronic and diachronic approaches, consistent or evolving coding, and individual- or group-level analysis. Gerontological LQR articles vary in the extent to which they address special aging considerations.
This review indicates that there are areas where gerontological LQR can be strengthened going forward. We provide researchers with strategies to improve LQR rigor in our field and beyond.
老年学家长期以来一直对纵向定性研究（LQR）感兴趣，但最佳实践仍存在歧义。本综述的目的是进行定性证据综合，以确定现有的老年学 LQR 的优势和局限性。
我们在 2017 年 9 月之前使用纵向定性方法并专注于老年学搜索了英文发表的研究。我们搜索了以下数据库：PubMed 和 ProQuest。随后进行了雪球搜索，以确定其他未聚焦于老年学但提供概念或方法信息以增强老年学 LQR 的 LQR 文章。审查了文章标题和摘要，并由所有作者独立评估选定的文章，并根据设计、分析以及优势和局限性在描述性矩阵中进行总结。
我们的文献搜索产生了 225 篇文章，然后根据纳入/排除标准缩小到 47 种不同期刊的 71 篇文章。老年学中的 LQR 在研究设计和分析方法上有很大差异。LQR 设计考虑因素包括时间点和持续时间的数量；融洽关系和保留率；以及一致或不同的抽样、数据收集和措施。LQR 分析考虑因素包括同步和历时方法、一致或不断发展的编码以及个体或群体水平的分析。老年学 LQR 文章在解决特殊老龄化问题的程度上存在差异。
本综述表明，在未来，老年学 LQR 有一些可以加强的领域。我们为研究人员提供了在我们的领域及其他领域提高 LQR 严谨性的策略。
