我国质性研究系统评价和Meta整合论文的质量评价

Quality evaluation of Systematic Review and Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies in China

目的:对我国质性研究的系统评价和Meta整合论文进行方法学和报告学质量评价。方法:以"质性研究/定性研究AND(系统评价/系统综述OR Meta整合)"为检索词,检索从2014年至2020年2月在我国Sinomed、中国知网、万方数据库和维普数据库公开发表的质性研究的系统评价和Meta整合论文,对其进行选题分析,并进一步采用CERQual规范和ENTREQ声明进行方法学质量和报告学质量评价。结果:共纳入质性研究系统评价和Meta分析论文48篇,分析发现近3年来Meta整合论文数量增加迅速,选题涵盖人文关怀的各类主题;论文的方法学质量在严谨性分析、整合结果的相关性、一致性、以及饱和性尚存在一定不足;报告学质量总体较好,但在提出PICo问题、检索策略、分析纳入研究质量对结果的影响,呈现"整合结果 -类别-提取的结果"逻辑框架图和提出进一步的研究建议等几个方面尚需要进一步提升。结论:质性研究的系统评价和Meta整合为深入开展以患者为中心的照护提供有意义的证据,应设计和开展有针对性的培训项目,提高我国质性研究系统评价和Meta整合的质量和整体水平。

Objective: To evaluate the quality of published Systematic Review and Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies in China. Method: The key terms Meta-synthesis OR qualitative synthesis were used to search published papers in Sinomed, CNKI, Wanfang Data and VIP from January 2014 to February 2020. Topics, methodology quality based on CERQual, reporting quality based on ENTREQ Statement were analyzed. Results: A total of 48 meta synthesis papers were included. Topics covered a variety of areas in humanistic care. More efforts were needed to emphasize on improving discussion of methodological limitations, relevance, coherence and adequacy of synthesis data. The reporting quality was relatively good. However, specific training programs should be developed to improve awareness of reporting quality, including how to propose adequate PICo, develop searching strategies, analyze the impact of research quality on synthesis results, present synthesis result-category-finding structure, as well as propose suggestions for further studies. Conclusion: Systematic Review and Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies provides rich evidence for health decision making, particularly in nursing areas which focus more on patient-centered care. Systematic training programs should be developed to improve overall quality of Systematic Review and Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.