Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T18:39:50.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multi-source synthesis of data to inform health policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2011

Vibe Hjelholt Pedersen ,
Pierre Dagenais  and
Pascale Lehoux
Vibe Hjelholt Pedersen
Affiliation:
King's College London
Pierre Dagenais
Affiliation:
University of Montreal and Institut National d'Excellence en Santé et en Services Sociaux (INESSS)
Pascale Lehoux
Affiliation:
University of Montreal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: To propose a new method for comparing and integrating original qualitative data with systematic reviews of quantitative and qualitative studies, demonstrated by a study of the psychosocial needs of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) sufferers in Québec.

Methods: A systematic literature review was performed across various databases for English and French language studies, on the psychosocial aspects of CFS. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method studies published between January 1994 and July 2008 were included. Unpublished literature and reference lists of included studies were also searched. Themes identified in the literature were used to guide semi-structured interviews with seventeen CFS-sufferers, mostly recruited from a large specialist practice in Montreal. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and validated by a research assistant. Transcripts were coded using the identified themes. New codes were created when new issues arose. All themes were subsequently synthesized into overall categories using a constant comparative method.

Results: The literature search yielded thirty-one papers: twenty-eight primary studies and three systematic reviews. Twelve themes were identified and synthesized into four overall problem categories, such as “Lack of professional recognition.” Interviews confirmed findings from the literature, but also revealed unidentified needs specific to CFS-sufferers in Québec. Policy recommendations were provided to address these needs.

Conclusions: Multi-Source Synthesis provides a systematic method for synthesizing data from original studies with literature findings, thereby broadening the knowledge base and the local relevance of decisions concerning specific patient populations.

Keywords

Systematic reviewMixed methodsQualitative researchResearch designNeeds assessment
Type
METHODS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 238 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Ax, S, Gregg, VH, Jones, D. Coping and illness cognitions: Chronic fatigue syndrome. Clin Psychol Rev. 2001;21:161–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Baxter, S, Killoran, A, Kelly, MP, Goyder, E. Synthesizing diverse evidence: The use of primary qualitative data analysis methods and logic models in public health reviews. Public Health. 2010;124:99–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Dixon-Woods, M, Agarwal, S, Jones, D, Young, B, Sutton, A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10:45–53.Google Scholar
4. Droste, S, Dintsios, CM, Gerber, A. Information on ethical issues in health technology assessment: How and where to find them. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:441–449.Google Scholar
5. Fukuda, K, Straus, SE, Hickie, I, et al. The chronic fatigue syndrome: A comprehensive approach to its definition and study. International Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:953–959.Google Scholar
6. Gilje, AM, Soderlund, A, Malterud, K. Obstructions for quality care experienced by patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)—A case study. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:36–41.Google Scholar
7. Institute for Public Health Sciences. 11 questions to help you make sense of descriptive/cross-sectional studies. New York, NY: Yeshiva University; 2002. http://www.yu.edu/aecomdb/dfsm/Uploads/ugclerkshipinfo/cross-sectional%20study%20appraisal%20tool.pdf.Google Scholar
8. Johri, M, Lehoux, P. The great escape? Prospects for regulating access to technology through health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:179–193.Google Scholar
9. Komaroff, AL, Fagioli, LR, Doolittle, TH, et al. Health status in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and in general population and disease comparison groups. Am J Med. 1996;101:281–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Kristensen, FB, Sigmund, H. Health technology assessment handbook. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA); 2008;78–83. http://www.sst.dk/publ/Publ2008/MTV/Metode/HTA_Handbook_net_final.pdf.Google Scholar
11. Larun, L, Malterud, K. Identity and coping experiences in chronic fatigue syndrome: A synthesis of qualitative studies. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;69:20–28.Google Scholar
12. Lehoux, P, Williams-Jones, B. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:9–16.Google Scholar
13. Leys, M. Health technology assessment: The contribution of qualitative research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:317–329.Google Scholar
14. Marston, C, King, E. Factors that shape young people's sexual behaviour: A systematic review. Lancet. 2006;368:1581–1586.Google Scholar
15. Mays, N, Pope, C. Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;320:50–52.Google Scholar
16. Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman, DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.Google Scholar
17. Noblit, GW, Hare, RD. Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1988.Google Scholar
18. Pedersen, VH. Care and support needs of people with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis in Québec. Montréal, Qc: Agence d'évaluation des technologies et des modes d'intervention en santé (AETMIS); 2010. http://www.aetmis.gouv.qc.ca/site/phpwcms_filestorage/0c45eeb2b6688f2de45cd70cf421e7df.pdf.Google Scholar
19. Pope, C, Mays, N. Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: An introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311:42–45.Google Scholar
20. Public Health Resource Unit. Critical appraisal skills programme [Web site]. Oxford, United Kingdom: Solutions for Public Health; 2006. http://www.sph.nhs.uk/what-we-do/public-health-workforce/resources/critical-appraisals-skills-programme.Google Scholar
21. Ross, SD, Estok, RP, Frame, D, et al. Disability and chronic fatigue syndrome: A focus on function. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1098–1107.Google Scholar
22. Sandelowski, M, Trimble, F, Woodard, EK, Barroso, J. From synthesis to script: Transforming qualitative research findings for use in practice. Qual Health Res. 2006;16:1350–1370.Google Scholar
23. Thomas, J, Harden, A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:45.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Pedersen supplementary material

Supplementary data

Download Pedersen supplementary material(File)
File 41.5 KB