Developing CAMELOT for assessing methodological limitations of qualitative research for inclusion in qualitative evidence syntheses

Author:

Munthe‐Kaas Heather M.1ORCID,Booth Andrew2ORCID,Sommer Isolde3ORCID,Cooper Sara4ORCID,Garside Ruth5ORCID,Hannes Karin6ORCID,Noyes Jane7ORCID,

Affiliation:

1. Centre for Epidemic Interventions Research Norwegian Institute of Public Health Oslo Norway

2. Sheffield Centre for Health & Related Research (SCHARR) University of Sheffield Sheffield UK

3. Department for Evidence‐based Medicine and Evaluation University for Continuing Education Krems Krems Austria

4. Cochrane South Africa South African Medical Research Council Cape Town South Africa

5. University of Exeter Exeter UK

6. Research Group SoMeTHin'K, Faculty of Social Sciences KU Leuven Leuven Belgium

7. School of Medical and Health Sciences Bangor University Bangor UK

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionQualitative evidence is increasingly incorporated into decision‐making processes. Assessing the methodological limitations of primary studies is critical to making an overall assessment of confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) using GRADE‐CERQual. Current critical appraisal tools were not developed specifically for use in Cochrane reviews or GRADE‐CERQual, and few are evidence‐based. The aim of CochrAne qualitative Methodological LimitatiOns Tool (CAMELOT) was to address this gap.MethodsWe undertook this project in four stages: (1) systematic literature search to identify existing tools, (2) identification of evidence to support inclusion of potential CAMELOT domains (3) consensus survey to agree on the inclusion and definition of CAMELOT domains, and (4) human‐centered design approach to develop and refine CAMELOT by exploring user experience.ResultsCAMELOT is a new evidence‐based tool for assessing the methodological strengths and limitations of primary qualitative research studies in a QES. CAMELOT is comprised of 12 domains: four Meta domains that encourage review authors to consider those characteristics of the primary study that are beyond how the study was carried out, but which inform the conduct and design of the study, and eight Method domains which encourage review authors to consider how the study was designed, planned and/or conducted, and how study conduct and design fits with the information provided in the four meta domains. Review authors make an assessment by identifying any concerns regarding the methods used in the study and considering the appropriateness of fit between the Meta and Method domains.ConclusionCAMELOT provides review authors with a transparent and systematic method to assess methodological limitations of primary qualitative studies. CAMELOT incorporates qualitative principles and focuses on appropriateness of fit between Meta and Method domains. In line with iterative tool development approach, CAMELOT will continue to be revised over time following extensive user testing and piloting.

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3