↓ Skip to main content

Protocol-developing meta-ethnography reporting guidelines (eMERGe)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
29 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Protocol-developing meta-ethnography reporting guidelines (eMERGe)
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0068-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

E.F. France, N. Ring, J. Noyes, M. Maxwell, R. Jepson, E. Duncan, R. Turley, D. Jones, I. Uny

Abstract

Designing and implementing high-quality health care services and interventions requires robustly synthesised evidence. Syntheses of qualitative research studies can provide evidence of patients' experiences of health conditions; intervention feasibility, appropriateness and acceptability to patients; and advance understanding of health care issues. The unique, interpretive, theory-based meta-ethnography synthesis approach is suited to conveying patients' views and developing theory to inform service design and delivery. However, meta-ethnography reporting is often poor quality, which discourages trust in, and use of, meta-ethnography findings. Users of evidence syntheses require reports that clearly articulate analytical processes and findings. Tailored research reporting guidelines can raise reporting standards but none exists for meta-ethnography. This study aims to create an evidence-based meta-ethnography reporting guideline articulating the methodological standards and depth of reporting required to improve reporting quality. The mixed-methods design of this National Institute of Health Research-funded study ( http://www.stir.ac.uk/emerge/ ) follows good practice in research reporting guideline development comprising: (1) a methodological systematic review (PROSPERO registration: CRD42015024709) to identify recommendations and guidance in conducting/reporting meta-ethnography; (2) a review and audit of published meta-ethnographies to identify good practice principles and develop standards in conduct/reporting; (3) an online workshop and Delphi studies to agree guideline content with 45 international qualitative synthesis experts and 45 other stakeholders including patients; (4) development and wide dissemination of the guideline and its accompanying detailed explanatory document, a report template for National Institute of Health Research commissioned meta-ethnographies, and training materials on guideline use. Meta-ethnography, devised in the field of education, is now used widely in other disciplines. Methodological advances relevant to meta-ethnography conduct exist. The extent of discipline-specific adaptations of meta-ethnography and the fit of any adaptions with the underpinning philosophy of meta-ethnography require investigation. Well-reported meta-ethnography findings could inform clinical decision-making. A bespoke meta-ethnography reporting guideline is needed to improve reporting quality, but to be effective potential users must know it exists, trust it and use it. Therefore, a rigorous study has been designed to develop and promote a guideline. By raising reporting quality, the guideline will maximise the likelihood that high-quality meta-ethnographies will contribute robust evidence to improve health care and patient outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Unknown 147 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 15%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 32 21%
Unknown 31 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 35 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 15%
Psychology 8 5%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 33 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,750,301
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#231
of 2,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,815
of 390,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 390,047 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.