Considering axiological integrity: a methodological analysis of qualitative evidence syntheses, and its implications for health professions education

Show simple item record Kelly, Martina A. Ellaway, Rachel H. Reid, Helen Ganshorn, Heather Yardley, Sarah Bennett, Deirdre Dornan, Tim 2018-06-15T13:35:23Z 2018-06-15T13:35:23Z 2018-05-14
dc.identifier.citation Kelly, M., Ellaway, R. H., Reid, H., Ganshorn, H., Yardley, S., Bennett, D. and Dornan, T. (2018) 'Considering axiological integrity: a methodological analysis of qualitative evidence syntheses, and its implications for health professions education', Advances in Health Sciences Education, In Press, doi: 10.1007/s10459-018-9829-y en
dc.identifier.startpage 1 en
dc.identifier.endpage 19 en
dc.identifier.issn 1573-1677
dc.identifier.doi 10.1007/s10459-018-9829-y
dc.description.abstract Qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) is a suite of methodologies that combine qualitative techniques with the synthesis of qualitative knowledge. They are particularly suited to medical education as these approaches pool findings from original qualitative studies, whilst paying attention to context and theoretical development. Although increasingly sophisticated use is being made of qualitative primary research methodologies in health professions education (HPE) the use of secondary qualitative reviews in HPE remains underdeveloped. This study examined QES methods applied to clinical humanism in healthcare as a way of advancing thinking around the use of QES in HPE in general. A systematic search strategy identified 49 reviews that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-study was used to develop an analytic summary of methodological characteristics, the role of theory, and the synthetic processes used in QES reviews. Fifteen reviews used a defined methodology, and 17 clearly explained the processes that led from data extraction to synthesis. Eight reviews adopted a specific theoretical perspective. Authors rarely described their reflexive relationship with their data. Epistemological positions tended to be implied rather than explicit. Twenty-five reviews included some form of quality appraisal, although it was often unclear how authors acted on its results. Reviewers under-reported qualitative approaches in their review methodologies, and tended to focus on elements such as systematicity and checklist quality appraisal that were more germane to quantitative evidence synthesis. A core concern was that the axiological (value) dimensions of the source materials were rarely considered let alone accommodated in the synthesis techniques used. QES can be used in HPE research but only with careful attention to maintaining axiological integrity. en
dc.description.sponsorship Arnold P. Gold Foundation Research Institute (“Mapping the Landscape, Journeying Together” Grant) en
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf en
dc.language.iso en en
dc.publisher Springer en
dc.rights © Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018. This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education. The final authenticated version is available online at: en
dc.subject Axiological integrity en
dc.subject Health professions education en
dc.subject Humanism en
dc.subject Qualitative evidence synthesis en
dc.subject Values en
dc.title Considering axiological integrity: a methodological analysis of qualitative evidence syntheses, and its implications for health professions education en
dc.type Article (peer-reviewed) en
dc.internal.authorcontactother Deirdre Bennett, Medical School Office, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. +353-21-490-3000 Email: en
dc.internal.availability Full text available en Access to this article is restricted until 12 months after publication by request of the publisher. en 2019-05-14 2018-06-15T13:24:45Z
dc.description.version Accepted Version en
dc.internal.rssid 441662773
dc.contributor.funder Arnold P. Gold Foundation en
dc.description.status Peer reviewed en
dc.identifier.journaltitle Advances In Health Sciences Education en
dc.internal.copyrightchecked No !!CORA!! en
dc.internal.licenseacceptance Yes en
dc.internal.IRISemailaddress en
dc.internal.bibliocheck In press, June 2018. Update citation details, volume, page numbers etc. en

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

This website uses cookies. By using this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with the UCC Privacy and Cookies Statement. For more information about cookies and how you can disable them, visit our Privacy and Cookies statement