2011
DOI: 10.1177/1359105311427615
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

No room for reflexivity? Critical reflections following a systematic review of qualitative research

Abstract: We conducted a systematic search of qualitative research into the individual's experience of chronic low back pain. Two reviewers independently read through 740 unique abstracts. Inter-rater reliability was fair. The final sample comprised 19 articles which we critiqued using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. This article focuses on the critical appraisal. Limitations include a lack of an adequate rationale for the theoretical framework, a lack of an account for the decisions made across recru… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
43
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 66 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
2
43
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Throughout the research process the same challenges observed within previous reviews of qualitative literature, particularly in relation to the search strategy and quality appraisal were evident (Pearson et al, 2011;Newton et al, 2011;Dixon-Woods et al, 2005;Evans, 2002).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 55%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Throughout the research process the same challenges observed within previous reviews of qualitative literature, particularly in relation to the search strategy and quality appraisal were evident (Pearson et al, 2011;Newton et al, 2011;Dixon-Woods et al, 2005;Evans, 2002).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…The review demonstrates the diverse body of international evidence undertaken to explore women's experience of coping with pain during childbirth whilst additionally highlighting the methodological challenges observed within previous reviews of qualitative literature (Pearson et al, 2011;Newton et al, 2011;Dixon-Woods et al,. 2005;Evans, 2002).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Increased reporting of the ethical issues ‘in practice’ and the influence of the researcher on the process and would increase the quality of reporting of these studies. These issues are common to other qualitative research [48], although particularly relevant to VSR, as evidenced by the distress during VSR described in one study [15]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Rigor refers to whether the approach to the study is thorough and appropriate; credibility refers to whether the findings are well presented and meaningful; relevance refers to the usefulness of the study's findings. [54][55][56][57][58][59] Disagreements were resolved by consensus and by a third researcher if necessary. Papers were not excluded on the basis of method quality but partitioned into high and low scores for outcome comparison in the discussion.…”
Section: Methods Quality Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%