Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: The eMERGe reporting guidance.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to provide guidance to improve the completeness and clarity of meta-ethnography reporting. BACKGROUND: Evidence-based policy and practice require robust evidence syntheses which can further understanding of people's experiences and associated social processes. Meta-ethnography is a rigorous seven-phase qualitative evidence synthesis methodology, developed by Noblit and Hare. Meta-ethnography is used widely in health research, but reporting is often poor quality and this discourages trust in and use of its findings. Meta-ethnography reporting guidance is needed to improve reporting quality. DESIGN: The eMERGe study used a rigorous mixed-methods design and evidence-based methods to develop the novel reporting guidance and explanatory notes. METHODS: The study, conducted from 2015 - 2017, comprised of: (1) a methodological systematic review of guidance for meta-ethnography conduct and reporting; (2) a review and audit of published meta-ethnographies to identify good practice principles; (3) international, multidisciplinary consensus-building processes to agree guidance content; (4) innovative development of the guidance and explanatory notes. FINDINGS: Recommendations and good practice for all seven phases of meta-ethnography conduct and reporting were newly identified leading to 19 reporting criteria and accompanying detailed guidance. CONCLUSION: The bespoke eMERGe Reporting Guidance, which incorporates new methodological developments and advances the methodology, can help researchers to report the important aspects of meta-ethnography. Use of the guidance should raise reporting quality. Better reporting could make assessments of confidence in the findings more robust and increase use of meta-ethnography outputs to improve practice, policy, and service user outcomes in health and other fields. This is the first tailored reporting guideline for meta-ethnography. This article is being simultaneously published in the following journals: Journal of Advanced Nursing, Psycho-oncology, Review of Education, and BMC Medical Research Methodology.

A systematic review of interventions to increase the use of standardized outcome measures by rehabilitation professionals.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the types and effectiveness of interventions to increase the knowledge about, attitudes towards, and use of standardized outcome measures in rehabilitation professionals. DATA SOURCES: An electronic search using Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Ergonomics Abstracts, Sports Discus. The search is current to February 2016. STUDY SELECTION: All study designs testing interventions were included as were all provider and patient types. Two reviewers independently conducted a title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted a priori variables and used consensus for disagreements. Quality assessment was conducted using the Assessment of Quantitative Studies published by the Effective Public Health Practice Group. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 11 studies involving at least 1200 providers. Nine of the studies showed improvements in outcome measure use rates but only three of these studies used an experimental or quasi-experimental design. Eight of the studies used an educational approach in the intervention and three used audit and feedback. Poor intervention description and quality of studies limited recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Increased attention to testing interventions focused on known barriers, matched to behavior change techniques, and with stronger designs is warranted.