Cited by 165Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceQualitative Research Methods and Applications

Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis

Open access
Harris, Janet L., Booth, Andrew, Cargo, Margaret, Hannes, Karin, Harden, Angela, Flemming, Kate, Garside, Ruth, Pantoja, Tomas +2 more·2018·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

This paper updates previous Cochrane guidance on question formulation, searching, and protocol development, reflecting recent developments in methods for conducting qualitative evidence syntheses to inform Cochrane intervention reviews. Examples are used to illustrate how decisions about boundaries for a review are formed via an iterative process of constructing lines of inquiry and mapping the available information to ascertain whether evidence exists to answer questions related to effectiveness, implementation, feasibility, appropriateness, economic evidence, and equity. The process of question formulation allows reviewers to situate the topic in relation to how it informs and explains effectiveness, using the criterion of meaningfulness, appropriateness, feasibility, and implementation. Questions related to complex questions and interventions can be structured by drawing on an increasingly wide range of question frameworks. Logic models and theoretical frameworks are useful tools for conceptually mapping the literature to illustrate the complexity of the phenomenon of interest. Furthermore, protocol development may require iterative question formulation and searching. Consequently, the final protocol may function as a guide rather than a prescriptive route map, particularly in qualitative reviews that ask more exploratory and open-ended questions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.023

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Sparks AC. Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers agree about validity. Qual Health Res. 2001;11(4):538-552
  2. Garside, R. (2014). Should we appraise the quality of qualitative research reports for systematic reviews, and if so, how?. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 27(1), 67-79.
  3. Sandelowski, M. (2015). A matter of taste: evaluating the quality of qualitative research. Nursing inquiry, 22(2), 86-94.
  4. Carroll, C., and Booth, A. (2015) Quality assessment of qualitative evidence for systematic review and synthesis: Is it meaningful, and if so, how should it be performed?. Res. Syn. Meth., 6: 149-154.
  5. Santiago-Delefosse, M, Gavin A, Bruchez, C, Roux, P, Stephen SL, Quality of qualitative research in the health sciences: Analysis of the common criteria present in 58 assessment guidelines by expert users, Social Science & Medicine, Volume 148, January 2016, Pages 142-151.
  6. Hannes, K., Lockwood, C. (2011). Pragmatism as the philosophical underpinning of the Joanna Briggs meta-aggregative approach to qualitative evidence synthesis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67 (7), 1632-1642.
  7. Saini, M. & Shlonsky, A. 2012 (pp 133-135). Systematic synthesis of Qualitative Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  8. Barone, T. & Eisner, E. (2012). Arts based Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage 13. Heyvaert, M., Hannes, K., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2013). Critical appraisal of mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7, 302-327. doi:10.1177/1558689813479449 · DOI
  9. Thomas J, Harden A, Oakley A, Oliver S, Sutcliffe K, Rees R, Brunton G, Kavanagh F. (2004) Integrating Qualitative Research with trials in systematic reviews: an example review from public health shows how integration is possible and some potential benefits. BMJ 328: 1010-12
  10. Glenton C., Colvin C.J., Carlsen B., Swartz A., Lewin S., Noyes J. & Rashidian A. (2013) Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of lay health worker programmes to improve access to maternal and child health: qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Systematic Review 10, CD010414.
  11. Benoot, C., Hannes, K., Bilsen, J. (2016). The use of purposeful sampling in a QES: A worked example on sexual adjustment to a cancer trajectory. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16 (21), 1-12.
  12. Whitaker, R., Hendry, M., Booth, A., Carter, B., Charles, J., Craine, N., ... & Rycroft-Malone, J. (2014). Intervention Now To Eliminate Repeat Unintended Pregnancy in Teenagers (INTERUPT): a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, qualitative and realist synthesis of implementation factors and user engagement. BMJ open, 4(4), e004733.
  13. Campbell R, et al. Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technol Assess 2011;15(43):1-164.
  14. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology, 8(1), 1.
  15. Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC medical research methodology,9(1), 1.
  16. Carroll, C., Booth, A., & Cooper, K. (2010). A worked example of" best fit" framework synthesis: a systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents. BMC medical research methodology, 11, 29-29.
  17. Carroll, C., Booth, A., Leaviss, J., & Rick, J. (2013). "Best fit" framework synthesis: refining the method. BMC medical research methodology, 13(1), 1.
  18. Malpass A, Shaw A, Sharp D, Walter F, Feder G, Ridd M, Kessler D. "Medication career" or "moral career"? The two sides of managing antidepressants: a meta-ethnography of patients' experience of antidepressants. Soc Sci Med. 2009 Jan;68(1):154-68.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harris, J. L., Booth, A., Cargo, M., Hannes, K., Harden, A., Flemming, K., Garside, R., Pantoja, T., Thomas, J., & Noyes, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • University of South Australia (AU)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • University of East London (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Bangor University (GB)
Corresponding author
Harris, Janet L.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-05
Volume
97
Pages
39-48
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2774161397
Cited by
165
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3
FWCI
13.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • UEL Research Repository (University of East London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • UEL Research Repository (University of East London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Bangor University Research Portal (Bangor University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
Keywords
qualitative evidence synthesis, question generation, literature searching, logic model, theoretical framework, complex interventions, implementation research, feasibility, appropriateness, economic evidence, equity
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Decision Making, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Research Design, Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review