开发 CAMELOT,用于评估定性研究的方法论局限性,以便纳入定性证据综述

Heather M. Munthe-Kaas, Andrew Booth, Isolde Sommer, Sara Cooper, Ruth Garside, Karin Hannes, Jane Noyes, The CAMELOT Development Group
{"title":"开发 CAMELOT,用于评估定性研究的方法论局限性,以便纳入定性证据综述","authors":"Heather M. Munthe-Kaas,&nbsp;Andrew Booth,&nbsp;Isolde Sommer,&nbsp;Sara Cooper,&nbsp;Ruth Garside,&nbsp;Karin Hannes,&nbsp;Jane Noyes,&nbsp;The CAMELOT Development Group","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Qualitative evidence is increasingly incorporated into decision-making processes. Assessing the methodological limitations of primary studies is critical to making an overall assessment of confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) using GRADE-CERQual. Current critical appraisal tools were not developed specifically for use in Cochrane reviews or GRADE-CERQual, and few are evidence-based. The aim of CochrAne qualitative Methodological LimitatiOns Tool (CAMELOT) was to address this gap.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We undertook this project in four stages: (1) systematic literature search to identify existing tools, (2) identification of evidence to support inclusion of potential CAMELOT domains (3) consensus survey to agree on the inclusion and definition of CAMELOT domains, and (4) human-centered design approach to develop and refine CAMELOT by exploring user experience.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>CAMELOT is a new evidence-based tool for assessing the methodological strengths and limitations of primary qualitative research studies in a QES. CAMELOT is comprised of 12 domains: four <i>Meta domains</i> that encourage review authors to consider those characteristics of the primary study that are beyond how the study was carried out, but which inform the conduct and design of the study, and eight <i>Method domains</i> which encourage review authors to consider how the study was designed, planned and/or conducted, and how study conduct and design fits with the information provided in the four meta domains. Review authors make an assessment by identifying any concerns regarding the methods used in the study and considering the appropriateness of fit between the <i>Meta</i> and <i>Method domains</i>.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>CAMELOT provides review authors with a transparent and systematic method to assess methodological limitations of primary qualitative studies. CAMELOT incorporates qualitative principles and focuses on appropriateness of fit between <i>Meta</i> and <i>Method domains</i>. In line with iterative tool development approach, CAMELOT will continue to be revised over time following extensive user testing and piloting.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12058","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Developing CAMELOT for assessing methodological limitations of qualitative research for inclusion in qualitative evidence syntheses\",\"authors\":\"Heather M. Munthe-Kaas,&nbsp;Andrew Booth,&nbsp;Isolde Sommer,&nbsp;Sara Cooper,&nbsp;Ruth Garside,&nbsp;Karin Hannes,&nbsp;Jane Noyes,&nbsp;The CAMELOT Development Group\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cesm.12058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Qualitative evidence is increasingly incorporated into decision-making processes. Assessing the methodological limitations of primary studies is critical to making an overall assessment of confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) using GRADE-CERQual. Current critical appraisal tools were not developed specifically for use in Cochrane reviews or GRADE-CERQual, and few are evidence-based. The aim of CochrAne qualitative Methodological LimitatiOns Tool (CAMELOT) was to address this gap.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We undertook this project in four stages: (1) systematic literature search to identify existing tools, (2) identification of evidence to support inclusion of potential CAMELOT domains (3) consensus survey to agree on the inclusion and definition of CAMELOT domains, and (4) human-centered design approach to develop and refine CAMELOT by exploring user experience.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>CAMELOT is a new evidence-based tool for assessing the methodological strengths and limitations of primary qualitative research studies in a QES. CAMELOT is comprised of 12 domains: four <i>Meta domains</i> that encourage review authors to consider those characteristics of the primary study that are beyond how the study was carried out, but which inform the conduct and design of the study, and eight <i>Method domains</i> which encourage review authors to consider how the study was designed, planned and/or conducted, and how study conduct and design fits with the information provided in the four meta domains. Review authors make an assessment by identifying any concerns regarding the methods used in the study and considering the appropriateness of fit between the <i>Meta</i> and <i>Method domains</i>.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>CAMELOT provides review authors with a transparent and systematic method to assess methodological limitations of primary qualitative studies. CAMELOT incorporates qualitative principles and focuses on appropriateness of fit between <i>Meta</i> and <i>Method domains</i>. In line with iterative tool development approach, CAMELOT will continue to be revised over time following extensive user testing and piloting.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"volume\":\"2 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12058\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.12058\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.12058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言 定性证据越来越多地被纳入决策过程。评估主要研究的方法学局限性对于使用 GRADE-CERQual 对定性证据综述(QES)结果的可信度进行整体评估至关重要。目前的批判性评估工具并不是专门为 Cochrane 综述或 GRADE-CERQual 而开发的,也很少有以证据为基础的工具。CochrAne定性方法学限制工具(CAMELOT)旨在弥补这一不足。 方法 我们分四个阶段开展了该项目:(1)系统性文献检索,以确定现有工具;(2)确定证据,以支持纳入潜在的 CAMELOT 领域;(3)共识调查,以就 CAMELOT 领域的纳入和定义达成一致;(4)以人为本的设计方法,通过探索用户体验来开发和完善 CAMELOT。 结果 CAMELOT 是一种新的循证工具,用于评估 QES 中主要定性研究的方法优势和局限性。CAMELOT 由 12 个领域组成:4 个元领域鼓励综述作者考虑主要研究的那些特征,这些特征超出了研究如何进行的范围,但为研究的进行和设计提供了信息;8 个方法领域鼓励综述作者考虑研究如何设计、规划和/或进行,以及研究的进行和设计如何与 4 个元领域提供的信息相匹配。综述作者在进行评估时,要确定研究中使用的方法是否存在任何问题,并考虑元域和方法域之间是否合适。 结论 CAMELOT 为综述作者提供了一种透明、系统的方法来评估主要定性研究的方法限制。CAMELOT 融合了定性原则,重点关注 "元 "域和 "方法 "域之间的契合度。根据迭代工具开发方法,CAMELOT 将在广泛的用户测试和试点之后不断进行修订。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Developing CAMELOT for assessing methodological limitations of qualitative research for inclusion in qualitative evidence syntheses

Introduction

Qualitative evidence is increasingly incorporated into decision-making processes. Assessing the methodological limitations of primary studies is critical to making an overall assessment of confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) using GRADE-CERQual. Current critical appraisal tools were not developed specifically for use in Cochrane reviews or GRADE-CERQual, and few are evidence-based. The aim of CochrAne qualitative Methodological LimitatiOns Tool (CAMELOT) was to address this gap.

Methods

We undertook this project in four stages: (1) systematic literature search to identify existing tools, (2) identification of evidence to support inclusion of potential CAMELOT domains (3) consensus survey to agree on the inclusion and definition of CAMELOT domains, and (4) human-centered design approach to develop and refine CAMELOT by exploring user experience.

Results

CAMELOT is a new evidence-based tool for assessing the methodological strengths and limitations of primary qualitative research studies in a QES. CAMELOT is comprised of 12 domains: four Meta domains that encourage review authors to consider those characteristics of the primary study that are beyond how the study was carried out, but which inform the conduct and design of the study, and eight Method domains which encourage review authors to consider how the study was designed, planned and/or conducted, and how study conduct and design fits with the information provided in the four meta domains. Review authors make an assessment by identifying any concerns regarding the methods used in the study and considering the appropriateness of fit between the Meta and Method domains.

Conclusion

CAMELOT provides review authors with a transparent and systematic method to assess methodological limitations of primary qualitative studies. CAMELOT incorporates qualitative principles and focuses on appropriateness of fit between Meta and Method domains. In line with iterative tool development approach, CAMELOT will continue to be revised over time following extensive user testing and piloting.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Methodological and reporting quality of systematic and rapid reviews on human mpox and their utility during a public health emergency Issue Information “Interest-holders”: A new term to replace “stakeholders” in the context of health research and policy Empowering the future of evidence-based healthcare: The Cochrane Early Career Professionals Network Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1