Cited by 183Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsHealth Policy Implementation Science

A methodological systematic review of what’s wrong with meta-ethnography reporting

Open access
France, Emma F, Ring, Nicola, Thomas, Rebecca, Noyes, Jane, Maxwell, Margaret, Jepson, Ruth·2014·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Syntheses of qualitative studies can inform health policy, services and our understanding of patient experience. Meta-ethnography is a systematic seven-phase interpretive qualitative synthesis approach well-suited to producing new theories and conceptual models. However, there are concerns about the quality of meta-ethnography reporting, particularly the analysis and synthesis processes. Our aim was to investigate the application and reporting of methods in recent meta-ethnography journal papers, focusing on the analysis and synthesis process and output. METHODS: Methodological systematic review of health-related meta-ethnography journal papers published from 2012-2013. We searched six electronic databases, Google Scholar and Zetoc for papers using key terms including 'meta-ethnography.' Two authors independently screened papers by title and abstract with 100% agreement. We identified 32 relevant papers. Three authors independently extracted data and all authors analysed the application and reporting of methods using content analysis. RESULTS: Meta-ethnography was applied in diverse ways, sometimes inappropriately. In 13% of papers the approach did not suit the research aim. In 66% of papers reviewers did not follow the principles of meta-ethnography. The analytical and synthesis processes were poorly reported overall. In only 31% of papers reviewers clearly described how they analysed conceptual data from primary studies (phase 5, 'translation' of studies) and in only one paper (3%) reviewers explicitly described how they conducted the analytic synthesis process (phase 6). In 38% of papers we could not ascertain if reviewers had achieved any new interpretation of primary studies. In over 30% of papers seminal methodological texts which could have informed methods were not cited. CONCLUSIONS: We believe this is the first in-depth methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct and reporting. Meta-ethnography is an evolving approach. Current reporting of methods, analysis and synthesis lacks clarity and comprehensiveness. This is a major barrier to use of meta-ethnography findings that could contribute significantly to the evidence base because it makes judging their rigour and credibility difficult. To realise the high potential value of meta-ethnography for enhancing health care and understanding patient experience requires reporting that clearly conveys the methodology, analysis and findings. Tailored meta-ethnography reporting guidelines, developed through expert consensus, could improve reporting.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2288-14-119

Cites

81 of 81 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

1 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [7]Nunes V, Neilson J, O’Flynn N, Calvert N, Kuntze S, Smithson H, Benson J, Blair J, Bowser A, Clyne W, Crome P, Haddad P, Hemingway S, Horne R, Johnson S, Kelly S, Packham B, Patel M, Steel J: Clinical guidelines and evidence review for medicines adherence: involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines and supporting adherence. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2009, NICE Clinical Guideline CG76;
  2. [35]Hannes K Noyes J Booth A Hannes K Harden A Harris J Lewin S Lockwood C Chapter 4: Critical appraisal of qualitative research Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2011
  3. [38]Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative research: appraisal tool. 10 questions to help you make sense of qualitative research 2006 Oxford Public Health Resource Unit
  4. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/14/119/prepub

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
France, E. F., Ring, N., Thomas, R., Noyes, J., Maxwell, M., & Jepson, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Stirling (GB)
  • Bangor University (GB)
  • Scottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy (GB)
Corresponding author
France, Emma F
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2014-11-19
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
119-119
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2107708125
Cited by
183
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 6
FWCI
3.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Output (Edinburgh Napier University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Napier Research Repository (Edinburgh Napier University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Stirling
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K023209/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
meta-ethnography, reporting quality, qualitative evidence synthesis, interpretive synthesis, methodological quality, patient experience, health care
MeSH terms
Anthropology, Cultural, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Publishing, Research Design, 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