Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health logoLink to Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
. 2004 Sep;58(9):794–800. doi: 10.1136/jech.2003.014829

Applying systematic review methods to studies of people's views: an example from public health research

A Harden 1, J Garcia 1, S Oliver 1, R Rees 1, J Shepherd 1, G Brunton 1, A Oakley 1
PMCID: PMC1732892  PMID: 15310807

Abstract

Methods for systematic reviews are well developed for trials, but not for non-experimental or qualitative research. This paper describes the methods developed for reviewing research on people's perspectives and experiences ("views" studies) alongside trials within a series of reviews on young people's mental health, physical activity, and healthy eating. Reports of views studies were difficult to locate; could not easily be classified as "qualitative" or "quantitative"; and often failed to meet seven basic methodological reporting standards used in a newly developed quality assessment tool. Synthesising views studies required the adaptation of qualitative analysis techniques. The benefits of bringing together views studies in a systematic way included gaining a greater breadth of perspectives and a deeper understanding of public health issues from the point of view of those targeted by interventions. A systematic approach also aided reflection on study methods that may distort, misrepresent, or fail to pick up people's views. This methodology is likely to create greater opportunities for people's own perspectives and experiences to inform policies to promote their health.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (252.3 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Barroso J., Powell-Cope G. M. Metasynthesis of qualitative research on living with HIV infection. Qual Health Res. 2000 May;10(3):340–353. doi: 10.1177/104973200129118480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Begg C., Cho M., Eastwood S., Horton R., Moher D., Olkin I., Pitkin R., Rennie D., Schulz K. F., Simel D. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996 Aug 28;276(8):637–639. doi: 10.1001/jama.276.8.637. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bossuyt Patrick M., Reitsma Johannes B., Bruns David E., Gatsonis Constantine A., Glasziou Paul P., Irwig Les M., Lijmer Jeroen G., Moher David, Rennie Drummond, de Vet Henrica C. W. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ. 2003 Jan 4;326(7379):41–44. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Boulton M., Fitzpatrick R., Swinburn C. Qualitative research in health care: II. A structured review and evaluation of studies. J Eval Clin Pract. 1996 Aug;2(3):171–179. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.1996.tb00041.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Campbell Rona, Pound Pandora, Pope Catherine, Britten Nicky, Pill Roisin, Morgan Myfanwy, Donovan Jenny. Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med. 2003 Feb;56(4):671–684. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00064-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cobb A. K., Hagemaster J. N. Ten criteria for evaluating qualitative research proposals. J Nurs Educ. 1987 Apr;26(4):138–143. doi: 10.3928/0148-4834-19870401-04. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dixon-Woods M., Fitzpatrick R., Roberts K. Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: opportunities and problems. J Eval Clin Pract. 2001 May;7(2):125–133. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00257.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Jüni P., Altman D. G., Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001 Jul 7;323(7303):42–46. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kearney M. H. Enduring love: a grounded formal theory of women's experience of domestic violence. Res Nurs Health. 2001 Aug;24(4):270–282. doi: 10.1002/nur.1029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Mays N., Pope C. Rigour and qualitative research. BMJ. 1995 Jul 8;311(6997):109–112. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.6997.109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. McNaughton D. B. A synthesis of qualitative home visiting research. Public Health Nurs. 2000 Nov-Dec;17(6):405–414. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1446.2000.00405.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Moher D., Cook D. J., Jadad A. R., Tugwell P., Moher M., Jones A., Pham B., Klassen T. P. Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(12):i-iv, 1-98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Nixon J., Khan K. S., Kleijnen J. Summarising economic evaluations in systematic reviews: a new approach. BMJ. 2001 Jun 30;322(7302):1596–1598. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7302.1596. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Popay J., Rogers A., Williams G. Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qual Health Res. 1998 May;8(3):341–351. doi: 10.1177/104973239800800305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES