The DOI matches its Crossref record; 81 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A methodological systematic review of what’s wrong with meta-ethnography reporting
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, it must be recognized that analysis and interpretation is limited by the contextual and conceptual thinness of some of the included studies (France et al., 2014).”
From Young people’s conceptualizations of the nature of cyberbullying: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research (2020) · cites this paper as France et al., 2014
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“A synthesis of these qualitative studies has the potential to achieve greater conceptual understanding of cyberbullying from young people's perspective (France et al., 2014).”
From Young people’s conceptualizations of the nature of cyberbullying: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research (2020) · cites this paper as France et al., 2014
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Wagner, H. R., Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2575405 · Cited by 46,525
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732305276687 · Cited by 44,601
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 · Cited by 42,509
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Ellis, C., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2074814 · Cited by 29,296
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook
Silverman, D. J. (1999) · Cited by 5,939
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- The Cochrane Collaboration: The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: 5.1.0 ed. 2011
- 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
- QSR International: NVivo qualitative data analysis software. 2012, QSR International Pty Ltd., Version 10
- Hannes K: Chapter 4: Critical appraisal of qualitative research. Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Edited by: Noyes J, Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, Harris J, Lewin S, Lockwood C. 2011, Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group, Version 1 (updated August 2011):
- 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
- The Joanna Briggs Institute: Reviewers’ Manual. 2011, Adelaide, South Australia: Joanna Briggs Institute
- Schutz A: Collected papers. 1962, Nijhoff: The Hague, 1:
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Jünger, S., Payne, S. A., Brine, J., Radbruch, L., & Brearley, S. G. (2017) · Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1177/0269216317690685 · Cited by 2,210
Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4 · Cited by 1,164
Booth, A. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x · Cited by 542
Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements
Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/hir.12276 · Cited by 570
Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance
France, E. F., Cunningham, M., Ring, N., Uny, I., Duncan, E. A. S., Jepson, R. G., Maxwell, M., Roberts, R. J., Turley, R. L., Booth, A., et al. (2019) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0600-0 · Cited by 469
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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)
- PMC
- PMC4277825
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
