Synthesising quantitative and qualitative research in evidence-based patient information
Open accessAbstract
Background: Systematic reviews have, in the past, focused on quantitative studies and clinical effectiveness, while excluding qualitative evidence. Qualitative research can inform evidence-based practice independently of other research methodologies but methods for the synthesis of such data are currently evolving. Synthesising quantitative and qualitative research in a single review is an important methodological challenge. Aims: This paper describes the review methods developed and the difficulties encountered during the process of updating a systematic review of evidence to inform guidelines for the content of patient information related to cervical screening. Methods: Systematic searches of 12 electronic databases (January 1996 to July 2004) were conducted. Studies that evaluated the content of information provided to women about cervical screening or that addressed women’s information needs were assessed for inclusion. A data extraction form and quality assessment criteria were developed from published resources. A non-quantitative synthesis was conducted and a tabular evidence profile for each important outcome (eg “explain what the test involves”) was prepared. The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was then assessed using an approach published by the GRADE working group, which was adapted to suit the review questions and modified to include qualitative research evidence. Quantitative and qualitative studies were considered separately for every outcome. Results: 32 papers were included in the systematic review following data extraction and assessment of methodological quality. The review questions were best answered by evidence from a range of data sources. The inclusion of qualitative research, which was often highly relevant and specific to many components of the screening information materials, enabled the production of a set of recommendations that will directly affect policy within the NHS Cervical Screening Programme. Conclusions: A practical example is provided of how quantitative and qualitative data sources might successfully be brought together and considered in one review.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
A focus on quantitative evidence is insufficient in areas where research is not dominated by RCTs.
“However, a focus on quantitative evidence is insufficient in areas where research is not dominated by RCTs [2].”
From Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence (2017) · cites this paper as [2]
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
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
(2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 · Cited by 8,477 · see citing works
Users' guides to the medical literature
Guyatt, G. H. (1993) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.270.17.2096 · Cited by 2,970 · see citing works
Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & Altman, D. G. (2000) · Cited by 2,312 · see citing works
Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods
Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1177/135581960501000110 · Cited by 2,132 · see citing works
Mays, N., Pope, C. J., & Popay, J. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1258/1355819054308576 · Cited by 1,384 · see citing works
Meta‐synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review
Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2005) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03380.x · Cited by 1,246 · see citing works
Atkins, D., Eccles, M., Flottorp, S., Guyatt, G. H., Henry, D., Hill, S., Liberati, A., O'Connell, D., Oxman, A. D., Phillips, B., et al. (2004) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-4-38 · Cited by 1,235 · see citing works
Appraising the Evidence: Reviewing Disparate Data Systematically
Hawker, S., Payne, S., Kerr, C., Hardey, M., & Powell, J. (2002) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732302238251 · Cited by 1,216 · see citing works
Evidence-Based Public Health: Moving Beyond Randomized Trials
Victora, C. G., Habicht, J.-P., & Bryce, J. (2004) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.94.3.400 · Cited by 1,056 · see citing works
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Guyatt, G. H. (1993) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1993.03510210084032 · Cited by 941 · see citing works
Giacomini, M. K., Cook, D. J., & for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.284.3.357 · Cited by 931 · see citing works
Campbell, R., Pound, P., Pope, C., Britten, N., Pill, R., Morgan, M., & Donovan, J. (2003) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00064-3 · Cited by 921 · see citing works
(2003) · Digital Education Resource Archive (University College London) · Cited by 902 · see citing works
How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective
Dixon-Woods, M., Bonas, S., Booth, A., Jones, D. R., Miller, T., Sutton, A. J., Shaw, R. L., Smith, J. A., & Young, B. (2006) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794106058867 · Cited by 860 · see citing works
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Oxman, A. D. (1994) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03520170077040 · Cited by 813 · see citing works
Oxman, A. D. (1993) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.270.17.2093 · Cited by 656 · see citing works
The problem of appraising qualitative research
Dixon-Woods, M. (2004) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2003.008714 · Cited by 653 · see citing works
Criteria for the systematic review of health promotion and public health interventions
Jackson, N., & Waters, E. (2005) · Health Promotion International · doi:10.1093/heapro/dai022 · Cited by 572 · see citing works
Evidence, hierarchies, and typologies: horses for courses: Table 1
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2003) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.57.7.527 · Cited by 539 · see citing works
Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews
Thomas, J., Harden, A., Oakley, A., Oliver, S., Sutcliffe, K., Rees, R., Brunton, G., & Kavanagh, J. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7446.1010 · Cited by 515 · see citing works
Oxman, A. D. (1994) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.272.17.1367 · Cited by 486 · see citing works
Assessing the quality of research.
Glasziou, P., Vandenbroucke, J., & Chalmers, I. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7430.39 · Cited by 391 · see citing works
How to Use an Article About Therapy or Prevention
Guyatt, G. H., Sackett, D. L., & Cook, D. J. (1995) · Cited by 357 · see citing works
Atkins, D. C., Briss, P. A., Eccles, M., Flottorp, S. A., Guyatt, G. H., Harbour, R., Hill, S. R., Jaeschke, R., Liberati, A., Magrini, N., et al. (2005) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-5-25 · Cited by 331 · see citing works
Harden, A., Garcia, J., Oliver, S., Rees, R., Shepherd, J., Brunton, G., & Oakley, A. (2004) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.2003.014829 · Cited by 328 · see citing works
Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: opportunities and problems
Dixon‐Woods, M., Fitzpatrick, R. M., & Roberts, K. (2001) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00257.x · Cited by 298 · see citing works
Finding qualitative research: an evaluation of search strategies
Shaw, R. L., Booth, A., Sutton, A. J., Miller, T., Smith, J. A., Young, B., Jones, D. R. H., & Dixon‐Woods, M. (2004) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-4-5 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
Principles of and Procedures for Systematic Reviews
Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (2001) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470693926.ch2 · Cited by 254 · see citing works
Application of systematic review methods to qualitative research: practical issues
Jones, M. L. (2004) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03196.x · Cited by 247 · see citing works
Assessing the Quality of Randomised Controlled Trials
Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., & Egger, M. (2001) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470693926.ch5 · Cited by 237 · see citing works
Evaluating and synthesizing qualitative research: the need to develop a distinctive approach
Barbour, R. S., & Barbour, M. (2003) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00371.x · Cited by 199 · see citing works
Qualitative research and evidence-based healthcare
Popay, J., & Williams, G. H. (1998) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1177/014107689809135s08 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Roberts, K. A., Dixon‐Woods, M., Fitzpatrick, R. M., Abrams, K. R., & Jones, D. R. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)11560-1 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
A review of the Public Health White Paper – Choosing Health: making healthy choices easier
Foster, R., & Buttriss, J. L. (2005) · Nutrition Bulletin · doi:10.1111/j.1467-3010.2005.00479.x · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Emotional reactions in women attending a UK colposcopy clinic.
Gath, D. H., Hallam, N., Mynors‐Wallis, L., et al. (1995) · Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.49.1.79 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Howells, R. E. J., Dunn, P., Isasi, T., Chenoy, R., Calvert, E., Jones, P. W., Shroff, J. F., & Redman, C. W. E. (1999) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08319.x · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Bankhead, C. R., Brett, J., Bukach, C., Webster, P., Stewart-Brown, S. L., Munafo, M. R., & Austoker, J. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7420 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Self-citationAssessing the quality of research
(2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7466.621-b · Cited by 50 · see citing works
The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network
(2013) · Pharmaceutical Medicine · doi:10.1093/med/9780199609147.003.0122 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Grading evidence and recommendations
Oxman, A. D., Briss, P. A., Eccles, M., et al. (2001) · BMC News and views · doi:10.1186/2048-4623-1-s3-pc148 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Using Systematic Reviews in Clinical Guideline Development
Eccles, M., Freemantle, N., & Mason, J. M. (2001) · doi:10.1002/9780470693926.ch21 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY OF PRECOLPOSCOPY EDUCATION SESSIONS: WHAT DO WOMEN WANT TO KNOW?
Neale, J., Pitts, M. K., & Dunn, P. (2003) · Health Care For Women International · doi:10.1080/07399330390212225 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Byrom, J., Dunn, P., Hughes, G. M., et al. (2003) · Journal of Medical Screening · doi:10.1177/096914130301000309 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Byrom, J., Dunn, P., Hughes, G. M., et al. (2003) · Journal of Medical Screening · doi:10.1258/096914103769011058 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Patient-based evaluation of a colposcopy information leaflet
Olamijulo, J. A., & Duncan, I. D. (1997) · Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · doi:10.1080/01443619750112970 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Breast Cancer after Radiotherapy for Hodgkin's Disease
Mitchell, G., & Horwich, A. (1998) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1177/014107689809100111 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Kuehner, C. A. (2001) · Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) · Cited by 2 · see citing works
McInnes, E. (2005) · Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2005.05007.x · Cited by 2 · see citing works
AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY OF PRECOLPOSCOPY EDUCATION SESSIONS: WHAT DO WOMEN WANT TO KNOW?
Neale, J., Pitts, M. K., & Dunn, P. (2003) · Health Care For Women International · doi:10.1080/07399330303994 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Goldsmith MR, Bankhead CR, Austoker J. Improving the quality of the written information sent to women about cervical screening: Evidence-based criteria for the content of letters and leaflets. NHS Cervical Screening Programmes, 2006 (NHSCSP Publication No 26).
- Petticrew M, Roberts H. Evidence, hierarchies, and typologies: horses for courses. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:527-9.
- McInnes L. To synthesise or not synthesis? That is the question! Worldviews Evid Based Nurs, 2005;2:49-51.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lewin, S., Glenton, C., Munthe-Kaas, H., Carlsen, B., Colvin, C. J., Gülmezoglu, M., Noyes, J., Booth, A., Garside, R., & Rashidian, A. (2015) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001895 · Cited by 866 · see citing works
Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Bujold, M., & Wassef, M. (2017) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2 · Cited by 754 · see citing works
“Authors described various reasons for performing SMSRs that fall into the following eight categories: (a) nature of the literature on a topic—to adapt the review method because of the limited evidence on the topic or absence of RCTs, (b) complexity of the phenomenon—to address a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, (c…”
BackgroundInfluentialGlenton, C., Colvin, C., Carlsen, B., Swartz, A., Lewin, S., Noyes, J., & Rashidian, A. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010414.pub2 · Cited by 454 · see citing works
System influences on work disability due to low back pain: An international evidence synthesis
Bartys, S., Frederiksen, P., Bendix, T., & Burton, K. (2017) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.05.011 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
- Authors
- Goldsmith, M. R., Bankhead, C. R., & Austoker, J.
- Affiliations
- Cancer Research UK (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Goldsmith, Megan R
- ORCID
- Bankhead, Clare R
- Venue
- Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2007-02-26
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 262-270
- ISSN
- 0141-7681 (ISSN-L)
- 0143-005X
- 1470-2738
- PMC
- PMC2652927
- OpenAlex
- W2117215416
- Cited by
- 142
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 8.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- cervical cancer screening, patient information, qualitative evidence synthesis, GRADE, evidence profiles, women's information needs, NHS Cervical Screening Programme, screening guidelines, methodological quality assessment
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Colposcopy, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Pamphlets, Patient Education as Topic, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Practice 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
