Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ.

Allison Tong,Jonathan Craig,Elizabeth Mcinnes,Kate Flemming,Sandy Oliver

doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-181

Abstract

BackgroundThe syntheses of multiple qualitative studies can pull together data across different contexts, generate new theoretical or conceptual models, identify research gaps, and provide evidence for the development, implementation and evaluation of health interventions. This study aims to develop a framework for reporting the synthesis of qualitative health research.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search for guidance and reviews relevant to the synthesis of qualitative research, methodology papers, and published syntheses of qualitative health research in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and relevant organisational websites to May 2011. Initial items were generated inductively from guides to synthesizing qualitative health research. The preliminary checklist was piloted against forty published syntheses of qualitative research, purposively selected to capture a range of year of publication, methods and methodologies, and health topics. We removed items that were duplicated, impractical to assess, and rephrased items for clarity.ResultsThe Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREQ) statement consists of 21 items grouped into five main domains: introduction, methods and methodology, literature search and selection, appraisal, and synthesis of findings.ConclusionsThe ENTREQ statement can help researchers to report the stages most commonly associated with the synthesis of qualitative health research: searching and selecting qualitative research, quality appraisal, and methods for synthesising qualitative findings. The synthesis of qualitative research is an expanding and evolving methodological area and we would value feedback from all stakeholders for the continued development and extension of the ENTREQ statement.

Highlights

The syntheses of multiple qualitative studies can pull together data across different contexts, generate new theoretical or conceptual models, identify research gaps, and provide evidence for the development, implementation and evaluation of health interventions
Identify the need for a guideline We identified the need for a reporting guideline for syntheses of qualitative research as a result of our collective experiences in using, publishing, reviewing and teaching syntheses of qualitative health research, debriefing notes taken after an international conference symposium on the synthesis of qualitative health research (Qualitative Health Research Conference in Vancouver, Canada, 2010, KF/AT) and a seminar at the Qualitative Health Research Collaboration in Sydney, Australia, 2011, (AT/EM)
To further establish a need for a reporting guideline, we conducted a comprehensive search for guidance and reviews relevant to the synthesis of qualitative research, methodology papers, and published syntheses of qualitative health research using the terms for “qualitative research” combined with terms relating to synthesis (Additional file 1)

Summary

Introduction

The syntheses of multiple qualitative studies can pull together data across different contexts, generate new theoretical or conceptual models, identify research gaps, and provide evidence for the development, implementation and evaluation of health interventions. The synthesis of findings from multiple qualitative studies can provide a range and depth of meanings, The number of published syntheses of qualitative health research is increasing (Figure 1). There are a wide range of qualitative synthesis methods with many common features, and key differences [1]. One of the first methods identified for synthesising qualitative research - meta-ethnography - has subsequently influenced the development of other methods such as thematic analysis and critical interpretive synthesis through the use of its terminology and concepts, as well as extending and adapting its methods. Some of the adaptations of qualitative syntheses have, resulted in inconsistent use of terms for describing key stages of synthesis [17]. While there are differences in approaches and rationale for some qualitative synthesis methods (for example, Critical Interpretive Synthesis may be better suited for large diverse bodies of literature while meta-ethnography may be better for analysing a smaller number of papers) [4] there is a core set of techniques common to most qualitative synthesis methods

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion