1 The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Qual Health Res. 2019 Jan;29(1):18-31. doi: 10.1177/1049732318808247.
Qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) encompasses more than 20 methods for synthesizing qualitative accounts of research phenomena documenting real-life contexts. However, tensions frequently arise from the different heritages that shape QES methodology: namely, systematic reviews of effectiveness and primary qualitative research. Methodological innovations either derive from each heritage or are stimulated when both are in juxtaposition; it is important to broker a rapprochement. This article draws on practical experience from a range of syntheses and methodological development work conducted with the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group. The legacy of both heritages is briefly characterized. Three stages of the QES process offer exemplars: searching/sampling, quality assessment, and data synthesis. Rather than an antagonistic clash of research paradigms, this dual heritage offers an opportunity to harness the collective energies of both paradigms. Future methodological research is needed to identify further applications by which this dual heritage might be optimally harnessed.
定性证据综合(QES)涵盖了 20 多种方法,用于综合研究现象的定性描述,记录现实生活背景。然而,由于塑造 QES 方法学的不同传统,常常会出现紧张局面:即针对有效性的系统评价和主要定性研究。方法创新要么源自每个传统,要么在两者并置时受到刺激;重要的是要促成和解。本文借鉴了与 Cochrane 定性和实施方法组合作进行的一系列综合和方法发展工作的实践经验。简要描述了这两个传统的遗产。QES 过程的三个阶段提供了范例:搜索/采样、质量评估和数据综合。这种双重遗产并不是研究范式的对抗性冲突,而是提供了一个机会,可以利用这两种范式的集体能量。需要进一步的方法学研究来确定如何最佳利用这种双重遗产的更多应用。