Cited by 981Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsDelphi Technique in Research

Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: Lessons learnt

Open access
Atkins, Salla, Lewin, Simon, Smith, Helen, Engel, Mark, Fretheim, Atle, Volmink, Jimmy·2008·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Qualitative synthesis has become more commonplace in recent years. Meta-ethnography is one of several methods for synthesising qualitative research and is being used increasingly within health care research. However, many aspects of the steps in the process remain ill-defined. DISCUSSION: We utilized the seven stages of the synthesis process to synthesise qualitative research on adherence to tuberculosis treatment. In this paper we discuss the methodological and practical challenges faced; of particular note are the methods used in our synthesis, the additional steps that we found useful in clarifying the process, and the key methodological challenges encountered in implementing the meta-ethnographic approach. The challenges included shaping an appropriate question for the synthesis; identifying relevant studies; assessing the quality of the studies; and synthesising findings across a very large number of primary studies from different contexts and research traditions. We offer suggestions that may assist in undertaking meta-ethnographies in the future. SUMMARY: Meta-ethnography is a useful method for synthesising qualitative research and for developing models that interpret findings across multiple studies. Despite its growing use in health research, further research is needed to address the wide range of methodological and epistemological questions raised by the approach.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2288-8-21

Cites

38 of 38 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: 1

  1. Booth A Cochrane or cock-eyed? How should we conduct systematic reviews of qualitative research? Qualitative Evidence-based conference: Taking a critical stance 2001 Coventry University

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Atkins, S., Lewin, S., Smith, H., Engel, M., Fretheim, A., & Volmink, J.
Affiliations
  • South African Medical Research Council (ZA)
  • Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • University of Cape Town (ZA)
  • Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten (NO)
Corresponding author
Atkins, Salla
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2008-04-16
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
21-21
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2022496169
Cited by
981
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 79 · 2023: 81 · 2022: 83 · 2021: 87 · 2020: 94 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 64 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 49 · 2012: 28
FWCI
20.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • LSTM Online Archive (Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Open University of Cape Town (University of Cape Town) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
meta-ethnography, qualitative evidence synthesis, tuberculosis treatment adherence, methodological issues, study quality assessment, research question formulation, health care research, epistemology of qualitative research
MeSH terms
Anthropology, Cultural, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Patient Compliance, Quality Control, Tuberculosis, Meta-Analysis as Topic, 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