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

Abstract

Background Decision making in health and social care requires robust syntheses of both quantitative and qualitative evidence. Meta-ethnography is a seven-phase methodology for synthesising qualitative studies. Developed in 1988 by sociologists in education Noblit and Hare, meta-ethnography has evolved since its inception; it is now widely used in healthcare research and is gaining popularity in education research. The aim of this article is to provide up-to-date, in-depth guidance on conducting the complex analytic synthesis phases 4 to 6 of meta-ethnography through analysis of the latest methodological evidence. Methods We report findings from a methodological systematic review conducted from 2015 to 2016. Fourteen databases and five other online resources were searched. Expansive searches were also conducted resulting in inclusion of 57 publications on meta-ethnography conduct and reporting from a range of academic disciplines published from 1988 to 2016. Results Current guidance on applying meta-ethnography originates from a small group of researchers using the methodology in a health context. We identified that researchers have operationalised the analysis and synthesis methods of meta-ethnography – determining how studies are related (phase 4), translating studies into one another (phase 5), synthesising translations (phase 6) and line of argument synthesis - to suit their own syntheses resulting in variation in methods and their application. Empirical research is required to compare the impact of different methods of translation and synthesis. Some methods are potentially better at preserving links with the context and meaning of primary studies, a key principle of meta-ethnography. A meta-ethnography can and should include reciprocal and refutational translation and line of argument synthesis, rather than only one of these, to maximise the impact of its outputs. Conclusion The current work is the first to articulate and differentiate the methodological variations and their application for different purposes and represents a significant advance in the understanding of the methodological application of meta-ethnography. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0670-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Childhood fussy/picky eating behaviours: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies

“…In addition, the meta-ethnography approach is still evolving, resulting in differing interpretations of the steps involved and varied uses of meta-ethnography terminology [21]. We have reported the steps we carried out at each stage of the meta-ethnography process as transparently as possible (Table 1), have attempted to use the terminology as originally used by Noblit and Hare [24] and have followed both methodological and reporting guidelines provided by France and colleagues [31,54] as closely as possible. Our findings represent the current literature in this area and are influenced by the methods, interview guides, interpretations and interests of the original study authors.…”

Understanding Surgical Antimicrobial Prescribing Behaviour in the Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-ethnography Protocol

“…The meta-ethnography has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); registration number CRD42020184343. Protocol development was informed by recent advances in meta-ethnographic theory and practice [33,34,36,[38][39][40][41][42]; and with reference to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist (see Additional File 1). Data from eligible papers will be synthesised following the seven phases (see Fig.…”

“…Meta-ethnography is a well-established qualitative evidence synthesis methodology with origins in the interpretive paradigm. It was rst developed by Noblit and Hare (1988) in the eld of education, because their aggregative synthesis could not explain the failure of desegregation in schools, but it is now widely used in health and social care research [33][34][35]. The seven-phase process integrates and compares ndings from multiple qualitative studies facilitating the identi cation of overarching constructs and development of new theory [36].…”

Understanding surgical antimicrobial prescribing behaviour in the hospital setting: a systematic review and meta-ethnography protocol

“…The meta-ethnography has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); registration number CRD42020184343. Protocol development was informed by recent advances in meta-ethnographic theory and practice [33,34,36,[38][39][40][41][42]; and with reference to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist (see Additional File 1). Data from eligible papers will be synthesised following the seven phases (see Figure 1) outlined by Noblit and Hare (1988); however, meta-ethnography is not a linear process and these phases will likely overlap and repeat as the synthesis proceeds [36].…”