Critically appraising qualitative research for systematic reviews: defusing the methodological cluster bombs.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Critically appraising qualitative research for systematic reviews: defusing the methodological cluster bombs. / Attree, Pamela M.; Milton, Beth.
In: Evidence and Policy : A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, Vol. 2, No. 1, 01.2006, p. 109-126.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Attree, PM & Milton, B 2006, 'Critically appraising qualitative research for systematic reviews: defusing the methodological cluster bombs.', Evidence and Policy : A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 109-126. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426406775249688

APA

Attree, P. M., & Milton, B. (2006). Critically appraising qualitative research for systematic reviews: defusing the methodological cluster bombs. Evidence and Policy : A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 2(1), 109-126. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426406775249688

Vancouver

Attree PM, Milton B. Critically appraising qualitative research for systematic reviews: defusing the methodological cluster bombs. Evidence and Policy : A Journal of Research Debate and Practice. 2006 Jan;2(1):109-126. doi: 10.1332/174426406775249688

Author

Attree, Pamela M. ; Milton, Beth. / Critically appraising qualitative research for systematic reviews: defusing the methodological cluster bombs. In: Evidence and Policy : A Journal of Research Debate and Practice. 2006 ; Vol. 2, No. 1. pp. 109-126.

Bibtex

@article{e36e0efe69544818ace317e0fa3c1f35,

title = "Critically appraising qualitative research for systematic reviews: defusing the methodological cluster bombs.",

abstract = "This article examines the place of qualitative research within systematic reviews as evidence for policy, discusses the critical appraisal process as applied to qualitative research, and gives illustrative examples of sound qualitative studies from the health policy field. A checklist is a useful tool for the quality evaluation of qualitative research, facilitating comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of different studies, and should stimulate debate between reviewers as part of the broader critical appraisal process. Critical appraisal must be central to research syntheses, thus enabling reviewers to make only good-quality qualitative evidence accessible for policy makers and practitioners.",

keywords = "SYSTEMATIC REVIEW, QUALITATIVE, CRITICAL APPRAISAL, QUALITY CRITERIA",

author = "Attree, {Pamela M.} and Beth Milton",

note = "This is an output from the authors' NHS-funded postdoctoral research fellowships. RAE_import_type : Journal article RAE_uoa_type : Social Work and Social Policy & Administration",

year = "2006",

month = jan,

doi = "10.1332/174426406775249688",

language = "English",

volume = "2",

pages = "109--126",

journal = "Evidence and Policy : A Journal of Research Debate and Practice",

issn = "1744-2648",

publisher = "Policy Press",

number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Critically appraising qualitative research for systematic reviews: defusing the methodological cluster bombs.

AU - Attree, Pamela M.

AU - Milton, Beth

N1 - This is an output from the authors' NHS-funded postdoctoral research fellowships. RAE_import_type : Journal article RAE_uoa_type : Social Work and Social Policy & Administration

PY - 2006/1

Y1 - 2006/1

N2 - This article examines the place of qualitative research within systematic reviews as evidence for policy, discusses the critical appraisal process as applied to qualitative research, and gives illustrative examples of sound qualitative studies from the health policy field. A checklist is a useful tool for the quality evaluation of qualitative research, facilitating comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of different studies, and should stimulate debate between reviewers as part of the broader critical appraisal process. Critical appraisal must be central to research syntheses, thus enabling reviewers to make only good-quality qualitative evidence accessible for policy makers and practitioners.

AB - This article examines the place of qualitative research within systematic reviews as evidence for policy, discusses the critical appraisal process as applied to qualitative research, and gives illustrative examples of sound qualitative studies from the health policy field. A checklist is a useful tool for the quality evaluation of qualitative research, facilitating comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of different studies, and should stimulate debate between reviewers as part of the broader critical appraisal process. Critical appraisal must be central to research syntheses, thus enabling reviewers to make only good-quality qualitative evidence accessible for policy makers and practitioners.

KW - SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

KW - QUALITATIVE

KW - CRITICAL APPRAISAL

KW - QUALITY CRITERIA

U2 - 10.1332/174426406775249688

DO - 10.1332/174426406775249688

M3 - Journal article

VL - 2

SP - 109

EP - 126

JO - Evidence and Policy : A Journal of Research Debate and Practice

JF - Evidence and Policy : A Journal of Research Debate and Practice

SN - 1744-2648

IS - 1

ER -

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords