↓ Skip to main content

Why, when and how to update a meta-ethnography qualitative synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, March 2016
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
30 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Why, when and how to update a meta-ethnography qualitative synthesis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0218-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma F. France, Mary Wells, Heidi Lang, Brian Williams

Abstract

Meta-ethnography is a unique, systematic, qualitative synthesis approach widely used to provide robust evidence on patient and clinician beliefs and experiences and understandings of complex social phenomena. It can make important theoretical and conceptual contributions to health care policy and practice. Since beliefs, experiences, health care contexts and social phenomena change over time, the continued relevance of the findings from meta-ethnographies cannot be assumed. However, there is little guidance on whether, when and how meta-ethnographies should be updated; Cochrane guidance on updating reviews of intervention effectiveness is unlikely to be fully appropriate. This is the first in-depth discussion on updating a meta-ethnography; it explores why, when and how to update a meta-ethnography. Three main methods of updating the analysis and synthesis are examined. Advantages and disadvantages of each method are outlined, relating to the context, purpose, process and output of the update and the nature of the new data available. Recommendations are made for the appropriate use of each method, and a worked example of updating a meta-ethnography is provided. This article makes a unique contribution to this evolving area of meta-ethnography methodology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 113 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 18%
Student > Master 20 17%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 30 26%
Unknown 21 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 12%
Psychology 13 11%
Social Sciences 13 11%
Computer Science 8 7%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 24 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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
#1,708,708
of 23,929,753 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#275
of 2,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,879
of 302,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#4
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,929,753 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 2,071 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 302,670 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.