|Title||Qualitative systematic reviews of treatment burden in stroke, heart failure and diabetes - methodological challenges and solutions.|
|Publication Type||Journal Article|
|Year of Publication||2013|
|Authors||Gallacher, K, Jani, B, Morrison, D, Macdonald, S, Blane, D, Erwin, P, May, CR, Montori, VM, Eton, DT, Smith, F, Batty, GD, Batty, GD, Mair, FS|
|Corporate Authors||International Minimally Disruptive Medicine Workgroup|
|Journal||BMC Med Res Methodol|
|Date Published||2013 Jan 28|
|Keywords||Cost of Illness, Diabetes Mellitus, Heart Failure, Humans, Physician-Patient Relations, Psychological Theory, Qualitative Research, Quality of Life, Stroke, Technology Assessment, Biomedical|
BACKGROUND: Treatment burden can be defined as the self-care practices that patients with chronic illness must perform to respond to the requirements of their healthcare providers, as well as the impact that these practices have on patient functioning and well being. Increasing levels of treatment burden may lead to suboptimal adherence and negative outcomes. Systematic review of the qualitative literature is a useful method for exploring the patient experience of care, in this case the experience of treatment burden. There is no consensus on methods for qualitative systematic review. This paper describes the methodology used for qualitative systematic reviews of the treatment burdens identified in three different common chronic conditions, using stroke as our exemplar.
METHODS: Qualitative studies in peer reviewed journals seeking to understand the patient experience of stroke management were sought. Limitations of English language and year of publication 2000 onwards were set. An exhaustive search strategy was employed, consisting of a scoping search, database searches (Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Medline & PsycINFO) and reference, footnote and citation searching. Papers were screened, data extracted, quality appraised and analysed by two individuals, with a third party for disagreements. Data analysis was carried out using a coding framework underpinned by Normalization Process Theory (NPT).
RESULTS: A total of 4364 papers were identified, 54 were included in the review. Of these, 51 (94%) were retrieved from our database search. Methodological issues included: creating an appropriate search strategy; investigating a topic not previously conceptualised; sorting through irrelevant data within papers; the quality appraisal of qualitative research; and the use of NPT as a novel method of data analysis, shown to be a useful method for the purposes of this review.
CONCLUSION: The creation of our search strategy may be of particular interest to other researchers carrying out synthesis of qualitative studies. Importantly, the successful use of NPT to inform a coding frame for data analysis involving qualitative data that describes processes relating to self management highlights the potential of a new method for analyses of qualitative data within systematic reviews.
|Alternate Journal||BMC Med Res Methodol|
|PubMed Central ID||PMC3568050|
|Grant List||CAF/10/03 / / Chief Scientist Office / United Kingdom |
/ / Chief Scientist Office / United Kingdom