Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Care | Research

Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance

Authors: Emma F. France, Maggie Cunningham, Nicola Ring, Isabelle Uny, Edward A. S. Duncan, Ruth G. Jepson, Margaret Maxwell, Rachel J. Roberts, Ruth L. Turley, Andrew Booth, Nicky Britten, Kate Flemming, Ian Gallagher, Ruth Garside, Karin Hannes, Simon Lewin, George W. Noblit, Catherine Pope, James Thomas, Meredith Vanstone, Gina M. A. Higginbottom, Jane Noyes

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Aims

The aim of this study was to provide guidance to improve the completeness and clarity of meta-ethnography reporting.

Background

Evidence-based policy and practice require robust evidence syntheses which can further understanding of people’s experiences and associated social processes. Meta-ethnography is a rigorous seven-phase qualitative evidence synthesis methodology, developed by Noblit and Hare. Meta-ethnography is used widely in health research, but reporting is often poor quality and this discourages trust in and use of its findings. Meta-ethnography reporting guidance is needed to improve reporting quality.

Design

The eMERGe study used a rigorous mixed-methods design and evidence-based methods to develop the novel reporting guidance and explanatory notes.

Methods

The study, conducted from 2015 to 2017, comprised of: (1) a methodological systematic review of guidance for meta-ethnography conduct and reporting; (2) a review and audit of published meta-ethnographies to identify good practice principles; (3) international, multidisciplinary consensus-building processes to agree guidance content; (4) innovative development of the guidance and explanatory notes.

Findings

Recommendations and good practice for all seven phases of meta-ethnography conduct and reporting were newly identified leading to 19 reporting criteria and accompanying detailed guidance.

Conclusion

The bespoke eMERGe Reporting Guidance, which incorporates new methodological developments and advances the methodology, can help researchers to report the important aspects of meta-ethnography. Use of the guidance should raise reporting quality. Better reporting could make assessments of confidence in the findings more robust and increase use of meta-ethnography outputs to improve practice, policy, and service user outcomes in health and other fields. This is the first tailored reporting guideline for meta-ethnography. This article is being simultaneously published in the following journals: Journal of Advanced Nursing, Psycho-oncology, Review of Education, and BMC Medical Research Methodology.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Noyes J, Booth A, Flemming K, Garside R, Harden A, Lewin S, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series-paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:49–58.CrossRef
2.
Uny I, France EF, Noblit GW. Steady and delayed: explaining the different development of meta-ethnography in health care and education. Ethnogr Educ. 2017;12(2):243–57.CrossRef
3.
Noyes J, Lewin S. Chapter 6: Supplemental guidance on selecting a method of qualitative evidence synthesis and integrating qualitative evidence with cochrane intervention reviews. In: Noyes J, Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, Harris J, Lewin S, Lockwood C, editors. Supplementary guidance for inclusion of qualitative research in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions. Version 1 (updated august 2011): Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group; 2011. Available from: http://​cqrmg.​cochrane.​org/​supplemental-handbook-guidance.
4.
Booth A, Carroll C, Ilott I, Low LL, Cooper K. Desperately seeking dissonance: identifying the disconfirming case in qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2013;23(1):126–41.CrossRef
5.
Noyes J, Lewin S. Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 1 (updated August 2011). In: Noyes J, Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, Harris J, Lewin S, Lockwood C, editors. Chapter 6: Supplemental Guidance on Selecting a Method of Qualitative Evidence Synthesis, and Integrating Qualitative Evidence with Cochrane Intervention Reviews. Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group; 2011. Available: http://​cqrmg.​cochrane.​org/​supplemental-handbook-guidance.
6.
Glenton C, Lewin S, Gulmezoglu AM. Expanding the evidence base for global recommendations on health systems: strengths and challenges of the OptimizeMNH guidance process. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):98.CrossRef
7.
Gulmezoglu AM, Chandler J, Shepperd S, Pantoja T. Reviews of qualitative evidence: a new milestone for Cochrane. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;11(11):ED000073.
8.
Pearson A, Wiechula R, Court A, Lockwood C. The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2005;3(8):207–15.PubMed
9.
Campbell R, Pound P, Morgan M, Daker-White G, Britten N, Pill R, et al. Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(43):1–164.CrossRef
10.
Pound P, Britten N, Morgan M, Yardley L, Pope C, Daker-White G, Campbell R. Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(1):133–55.CrossRef
11.
Carroll C. Qualitative evidence synthesis to improve implementation of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 2017;356:j80.CrossRef
12.
Rycroft-Malone J, Burton CR. The synthesis of qualitative data (Chapter 8). In: Richards DA, Hallberg IR, editors. Complex interventions in health: An overview of research methods. Abingdon: Routledge; 2015.
13.
Turner SP. Sociological explanation as translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1980.
14.
Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. California: Sage Publications; 1988.CrossRef
15.
Thorne SE. Qualitative metasynthesis: a technical exercise or a source of new knowledge? Psycho-Oncology. 2015;24(11):1347–8.CrossRef
16.
Dixon-Woods M, Booth A, Sutton AJ. Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports. Qual Res. 2007;7(3):375–422.CrossRef
17.
Hannes K, Macaitis K. A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis: update on a review of published papers. Qual Res. 2012;12(4):402–42.CrossRef
18.
Ring N, Jepson R, Ritchie K. Methods of synthesizing qualitative research studies for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011b;27(4):384–90.CrossRef
19.
Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, Annandale E, Arthur A, Harvey J, et al. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:35.CrossRef
20.
Paterson BL. “It looks great but how do I know if it fits?”: an introduction to Meta-synthesis research. In: Barroso J, Sandelowski M, editors. Synthesizing qualitative research. Hoboken: Wiley; 2011. p. 1–20.
21.
Nunes V, Neilson J, O’Flynn N, Calvert N, Kuntze S, Smithson H, et al. Clinical guidelines and evidence review for medicines adherence: Involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines and supporting adherence (Vol. CG76). London: National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care and Royal College of General Practitioners; 2009.
22.
Ring N, Jepson R, Hoskins G, Wilson C, Pinnock H, Sheikh A, Wyke S. Understanding what helps or hinders asthma action plan use: a systematic review and synthesis of the qualitative literature. Patient Educ Couns. 2011a;85(2):e131–43.CrossRef
23.
Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R. Using meta ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7(4):209–15.CrossRef
24.
Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, Britten N, Pill R, Morgan M, Donovan J. Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(4):671–84.CrossRef
25.
France EF, Ring N, Thomas R, Noyes J, Maxwell M, Jepson R. A methodological systematic review of what’s wrong with meta-ethnography reporting. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):119.CrossRef
26.
Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Carlsen B, Colvin CJ, Gulmezoglu M, et al. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Med. 2015;12(10):e1001895.CrossRef
27.
Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison D, Schulz K, Altman DG, Hill C, Gaboury I. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust. 2006;185(5):263.PubMed
28.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group, P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.CrossRef
29.
Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181.CrossRef
30.
Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: Meta-narrative reviews. BMC Med. 2013;11(1):20.CrossRef
31.
Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000217.CrossRef
32.
France EF, Ring N, Noyes J, Maxwell M, Jepson R, Duncan E, et al. Protocol-developing meta-ethnography reporting guidelines (eMERGe). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15(1):103.CrossRef
33.
Linstone HAT, Turoff M. The delphi method: techniques and applications. Technometrics. 2002;18:363.
34.
Cunningham M, France EF, Ring N, Uny I, Duncan EAS, Roberts RJ, Noyes J. 13/114/60. Developing a reporting guideline to improve meta-ethnography in health research: The eMERGe mixed-methods study. Health Serv Deliv Res J. in press; (in press).
35.
Flemming K, Booth A, Hannes K, Cargo M, Noyes J. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 6: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation and process evaluation evidence syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:79–85.CrossRef
36.
Booth A. “Brimful of STARLITE”: toward standards for reporting literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94(4):421–9 e205.PubMedPubMedCentral
37.
38.
Finlayson KW, Dixon A. Qualitative meta-synthesis: a guide for the novice. Nurs Res. 2008;15(2):59–71.CrossRef
39.
Kangasniemi M, Lansimies-Antikainen H, Halkoaho A, Pietila AM. Examination of the phases of metasynthesis: a study on patients’ duties as an example. Prof Inferm. 2012;65(1):55–60.PubMed
40.
Toye F, Seers K, Allcock N, Briggs M, Carr E, Barker K. Meta-ethnography 25 years on: challenges and insights for synthesising a large number of qualitative studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:80.CrossRef
41.
France EF, Wells M, Lang H, Williams B. Why, when and how to update a meta-ethnography qualitative synthesis. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):44.CrossRef
42.
Atkins S, Lewin S, Smith H, Engel M, Fretheim A, Volmink J. Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: lessons learnt. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:21.CrossRef
43.
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;68(1):154–68.CrossRef
44.
Booth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Gerhardus, A., Wahlster, P., Van Der Wilt, G., Rehfuess E. (2016). Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. INTEGRATE-HTA.
45.
Finfgeld-Connett D. Metasynthesis findings: potential versus reality. Qual Health Res. 2014;24(11):1581–91.CrossRef
46.
Finfgeld-Connett D, Johnson ED. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(1):194–204.CrossRef
47.
Booth A. Acknowledging a dual heritage for qualitative evidence synthesis: harnessing the qualitative research and systematic review research traditions. Sheffield: PhD University of Sheffield; 2013.
48.
Suri H, Clarke D. Advancements in research synthesis methods: from a methodologically inclusive perspective. Rev Educ Res. 2009;79(1):395–430.CrossRef
49.
Britten N, Pope C. Medicine taking for asthma: a worked example of meta-ethnography (chapter 3). In: Hannes K, Lockwood C, editors. . Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell BMJ Books; 2012. p. 41–58.
50.
Erasmus E. The use of street-level bureaucracy theory in health policy analysis in low- and middle-income countries: a meta-ethnographic synthesis. Health Policy Plan. 2014;29(Suppl 3):iii70–8.CrossRef
51.
Thorne S, Jensen L, Kearney MH, Noblit G, Sandelowski M. Qualitative metasynthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qual Health Res. 2004;14(10):1342–65.CrossRef
52.
Toye F, Seers K, Allcock N, Briggs M, Carr E, Andrews J, Barker K. Trying to pin down jelly’ – exploring intuitive processes in quality assessment for meta-ethnography. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):46.CrossRef
53.
Beck CT. Metasynthesis: a goldmine for evidence-based practice. AORN J. 2009;90(5):701-2–705-10.CrossRef
54.
Garside R. A Comparison of methods for the systematic review of qualitative research: Two examples using meta-ethnography and meta-study. Exeter: PhD University of Exeter; 2008.
55.
Doyle LH. Synthesis through meta-ethnography: paradoxes, enhancements and possibilities. Qual Res. 2003;3(3):321–44.CrossRef
56.
Wikberg A, Bondas T. A patient perspective in research on intercultural caring in maternity care: a meta-ethnography. Int J Qual Stud Health Well Being. 2010;5(1):4648.
57.
Kinn LG, Holgersen H, Ekeland TJ, Davidson L. Metasynthesis and bricolage: an artistic exercise of creating a collage of meaning. Qual Health Res. 2013;23(9):1285–92.CrossRef
58.
Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9(1):59.CrossRef
59.
Bondas T, Hall EO. Challenges in approaching metasynthesis research. Qual Health Res. 2007;17(1):113–21.CrossRef
60.
Bearman M, Dawson P. Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education. Med Educ. 2013;47(3):252–60.CrossRef
61.
Walsh D, Downe S. Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. J Adv Nurs. 2005;50(2):204–11.CrossRef
62.
Thorne S. Metasynthetic madness: what kind of monster have we created? Qual Health Res. 2017;27(1):3–7.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance
Authors
Emma F. France
Maggie Cunningham
Nicola Ring
Isabelle Uny
Edward A. S. Duncan
Ruth G. Jepson
Margaret Maxwell
Rachel J. Roberts
Ruth L. Turley
Andrew Booth
Nicky Britten
Kate Flemming
Ian Gallagher
Ruth Garside
Karin Hannes
Simon Lewin
George W. Noblit
Catherine Pope
James Thomas
Meredith Vanstone
Gina M. A. Higginbottom
Jane Noyes
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Care
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0600-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

Evaluating antimalarial efficacy in single-armed and comparative drug trials using competing risk survival analysis: a simulation study

Research article

A comparison of machine learning techniques for classification of HIV patients with antiretroviral therapy-induced mitochondrial toxicity from those without mitochondrial toxicity

Research article

Ideal vs. real: a systematic review on handling covariates in randomized controlled trials

Research article

A methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct to articulate the complex analytical phases

Technical advance

A novel approach to determine two optimal cut-points of a continuous predictor with a U-shaped relationship to hazard ratio in survival data: simulation and application

Research article

The feasibility of web surveys for obtaining patient-reported outcomes from cancer survivors: a randomized experiment comparing survey modes and brochure enclosures