Vittoria Zaccari, Michela Fazi, Federica Scarci, Valentina Correr, Lucrezia Trani, Maria Grazia Filomena, Valentina Piccione, Stefano Joe Cattan, Maria Giovanna Ginni, Francesca D'Olimpio, Francesco Mancini
{"title":"理解自我批评:对定性方法的系统回顾。","authors":"Vittoria Zaccari, Michela Fazi, Federica Scarci, Valentina Correr, Lucrezia Trani, Maria Grazia Filomena, Valentina Piccione, Stefano Joe Cattan, Maria Giovanna Ginni, Francesca D'Olimpio, Francesco Mancini","doi":"10.36131/cnfioritieditore20240602","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Self-criticism (SC) is a central transdiagnostic factor in several psychopathological conditions, influencing the development and maintenance of symptomatology. The importance of this construct has stimulated quantitative and qualitative research about it. The main purpose of this systematic review is to highlight which qualitative methods have been used most frequently and which are most suitable for studying SC.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a systematic search by searching the following databases to identify publications: PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and ERIC (all years up to and including January 2024). We aggregated search terms into two concepts for all databases: \"self-criticism\" and \"qualitative analysis\".</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After removing duplicates, we screened a total of 852 records, resulting in the identification of 28 full-text articles that we assessed for eligibility. Upon closer examination, there was consensus that 16 of those studies met the inclusion criteria. Data extracted from the included studies revealed the lack of a shared approach regarding qualitative analysis of SC. Some studies employed a top-down coding approach, others used a bottom-up coding approach, and a few combined both methods. Consensual qualitative research and thematic analysis have been used most widely in the field. Furthermore, the data revealed no consensus among researchers on the conceptualization of SC. SC categories identified through qualitative analysis frequently do not align with existing theoretical models, and these categories are rarely re-examined in subsequent studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a need to test existing theoretical models of SC through qualitative analysis and to develop new models that should be examined with qualitative and quantitative methods in different clinical populations to fully capture the complexity and multidimensionality of SC.</p>","PeriodicalId":46700,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuropsychiatry","volume":"21 6","pages":"455-476"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11745034/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding Self-Criticism: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Approaches.\",\"authors\":\"Vittoria Zaccari, Michela Fazi, Federica Scarci, Valentina Correr, Lucrezia Trani, Maria Grazia Filomena, Valentina Piccione, Stefano Joe Cattan, Maria Giovanna Ginni, Francesca D'Olimpio, Francesco Mancini\",\"doi\":\"10.36131/cnfioritieditore20240602\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Self-criticism (SC) is a central transdiagnostic factor in several psychopathological conditions, influencing the development and maintenance of symptomatology. The importance of this construct has stimulated quantitative and qualitative research about it. The main purpose of this systematic review is to highlight which qualitative methods have been used most frequently and which are most suitable for studying SC.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a systematic search by searching the following databases to identify publications: PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and ERIC (all years up to and including January 2024). We aggregated search terms into two concepts for all databases: \\\"self-criticism\\\" and \\\"qualitative analysis\\\".</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After removing duplicates, we screened a total of 852 records, resulting in the identification of 28 full-text articles that we assessed for eligibility. Upon closer examination, there was consensus that 16 of those studies met the inclusion criteria. Data extracted from the included studies revealed the lack of a shared approach regarding qualitative analysis of SC. Some studies employed a top-down coding approach, others used a bottom-up coding approach, and a few combined both methods. Consensual qualitative research and thematic analysis have been used most widely in the field. Furthermore, the data revealed no consensus among researchers on the conceptualization of SC. SC categories identified through qualitative analysis frequently do not align with existing theoretical models, and these categories are rarely re-examined in subsequent studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a need to test existing theoretical models of SC through qualitative analysis and to develop new models that should be examined with qualitative and quantitative methods in different clinical populations to fully capture the complexity and multidimensionality of SC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46700,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Neuropsychiatry\",\"volume\":\"21 6\",\"pages\":\"455-476\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11745034/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Neuropsychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36131/cnfioritieditore20240602\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuropsychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36131/cnfioritieditore20240602","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:自我批评(SC)是多种精神病理状态的核心诊断因素,影响症状的发展和维持。这一结构的重要性刺激了对其进行定量和定性研究。本系统综述的主要目的是突出哪些定性方法最常用,哪些最适合研究科学。方法:我们通过搜索以下数据库进行了系统检索,以确定出版物:PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed和ERIC(截至2024年1月及包括1月)。我们将所有数据库的搜索词汇总为两个概念:“自我批评”和“定性分析”。结果:在去除重复后,我们共筛选了852条记录,最终鉴定出28篇全文文章,我们对其进行了资格评估。经过更仔细的检查,一致认为这些研究中有16项符合纳入标准。从纳入的研究中提取的数据显示,缺乏一种关于SC定性分析的共享方法。一些研究采用自上而下的编码方法,另一些使用自下而上的编码方法,还有一些将两种方法结合起来。协商一致的定性研究和专题分析在这一领域得到了最广泛的应用。此外,研究数据显示,研究人员对供应链的概念化没有达成共识。通过定性分析确定的供应链类别经常与现有的理论模型不一致,而且这些类别在随后的研究中很少被重新审视。结论:有必要通过定性分析来检验现有的SC理论模型,并开发新的模型,用定性和定量的方法在不同的临床人群中进行检验,以充分捕捉SC的复杂性和多维性。
Understanding Self-Criticism: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Approaches.
Objective: Self-criticism (SC) is a central transdiagnostic factor in several psychopathological conditions, influencing the development and maintenance of symptomatology. The importance of this construct has stimulated quantitative and qualitative research about it. The main purpose of this systematic review is to highlight which qualitative methods have been used most frequently and which are most suitable for studying SC.
Method: We conducted a systematic search by searching the following databases to identify publications: PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and ERIC (all years up to and including January 2024). We aggregated search terms into two concepts for all databases: "self-criticism" and "qualitative analysis".
Results: After removing duplicates, we screened a total of 852 records, resulting in the identification of 28 full-text articles that we assessed for eligibility. Upon closer examination, there was consensus that 16 of those studies met the inclusion criteria. Data extracted from the included studies revealed the lack of a shared approach regarding qualitative analysis of SC. Some studies employed a top-down coding approach, others used a bottom-up coding approach, and a few combined both methods. Consensual qualitative research and thematic analysis have been used most widely in the field. Furthermore, the data revealed no consensus among researchers on the conceptualization of SC. SC categories identified through qualitative analysis frequently do not align with existing theoretical models, and these categories are rarely re-examined in subsequent studies.
Conclusions: There is a need to test existing theoretical models of SC through qualitative analysis and to develop new models that should be examined with qualitative and quantitative methods in different clinical populations to fully capture the complexity and multidimensionality of SC.