nach oben

Quality & Quantity

Erschienen in:

05.05.2016

Critical appraisal of mixed methods research studies in a systematic scoping review on plural policing: assessing the impact of excluding inadequately reported studies by means of a sensitivity analysis

verfasst von: Antoinette Verhage, Dominique Boels

Erschienen in: Quality & Quantity | Ausgabe 4/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

A scoping review is a method which is often applied in the systematic review arena. Its aim is to map existing literature in a specific area. Carrying out a scoping review entails dealing with a number of methodological questions that arise during the review. In this paper, we go into the way in which these issues were contemplated upon and dealt with. We particularly focus on how to deal with the critical appraisal of literature (and the use of the outcome of this appraisal in terms of in- or exclusion criteria) and its effects on the contents and outcome of the review. This implies that we will report on the result of a sensitivity analysis. A second methodological issue that is focused on is how to make a review that considers multiple (qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods) designs and how to handle the different types of results that were derived from each method. We conclude by considering the pros and cons of including inadequately reported studies and plea to inform readers on the quality of literature that was included.

Vorheriger Artikel Microfinance and savings among the poor: evidence from Bangladesh microfinance sector

Nächster Artikel Can civilian disability pensions overcome the poverty issue? A DSGE analysis for Italian data

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Currently policing is not solely executed by the public police anymore. Instead, multiple actors (e.g. private police, inspectorate services, citizens) are engaged in policing activities (e.g. order maintenance, law enforcement, crime investigation). The term plural policing refers to the fact that policing services are delivered in the public, semi-public and private domain by a complex of public and private bodies and agencies (for results of the review, see Boels and Verhage 2016). The aim of our scoping review was to identify the literature on the dangers of plural policing and on the impact of plural policing on core police tasks.

Some of these have been thoroughly explained such as content analysis (Finfgeld-Connett 2013), meta-ethnography (Lee et al. 2015) and thematic synthesis (Cruzes and Dyba 2011).

For us, empirical research implies that the publication needed to refer to newly collected data. Empirical was defined as “established through observation what is happening in reality” (Baarda et al. 2009). This implies data gathering, through either qualitative, or quantitative methods, or a combination of both.

Blurring AND boundaries OR lines; extended policing family; new security complex; policing AND commodification; policing AND diversification; policing AND fragment*; policing AND hybrid; policing AND network; policing AND third party; polic* AND plural; polic* AND complex; polic* AND function.

Toezicht; handhaving; netwerkstructuur; politie AND plural*; plural AND policing; politiefunctie; veiligheid AND fragmentering; veiligheidscomplex; veiligheidshandhaving; vervagende AND grenzen. We chose to include English key terms to identify studies in Dutch, as we found that these terms are sometimes also used in Dutch publications.

In addition, we registered the dates of search, time span of literature (in some databases, such as the Campbell Library, studies were not accessible as from 1990, but only for instance as from 2003), places of keywords search (title, abstract full text) plus reason why not searched in title and extra search features (if applicable).

Three publications were based on the same empirical data, so in fact two studies used mixed methods.

For examples we refer to Dixon-Woods et al. (2004), Hannes et al. (2010), Popay et al. (1998), Spencer et al. (2003).

Meaning that the methods used are mentioned by the authors in the introduction and/or methods-section.

Whereas one study for instance focused on the evaluation of partnerships between the police and local groups engaged in policing in fragile African states, another one focused on the impact of civilian policing on the legitimacy of the public police, the extent of public support for civilian policing and their impact upon crime reduction in the UK.

These four criteria are included in different appraisal checklists and tools, such as the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) and the evaluation tool for qualitative studies (ETQS) (Carroll et al. 2012).

Arksey, H., O’Malley, L.: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol.: Theory Pract. 8(1), 19–32 (2005)CrossRef

Baarda, D.B., De Goede, M.P.M., Teunissen, J.: Basisboek Kwalitatief Onderzoek: Handleiding Voor het opzetten en Uitvoeren van Kwalitatief Onderzoek. Stenfert Kroese, Groningen (2009)

Barnett-Page, E., Thomas, J.: Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 9(59), 1–11 (2009)

Boeije, H.R., van Wesel, F., Alisic, E.: Making a difference: towards a method for weighing the evidence in a qualitative synthesis. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 17(4), 657–663 (2011)CrossRef

Boels, D., Verhage, A.: Plural policing: a state-of-the-art review. Polic. Int. J. Police Strateg. Manag. 39(1), 1–16 (2016)

Booth, A.: Systematic approaches to the literature. In: Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., Sutton, A. (eds.) Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review, pp. 17–35. Sage, London (2012)

Booth, A. (2001). Cochrane or cock-eyed? How should we conduct systematic reviews of qualitative research? In: Paper presented at the Qualitative Evidence-based Practice Conference. Taking a critical stance, Coventry University

Carroll, C., Booth, A., Lloyd-Jones, M.: Should we exclude inadequately reported studies from qualitative systematic reviews? An evaluation of sensitivity analyses in two case study reviews. Qual. Health Res. 22(10), 1425–1434 (2012)CrossRef

Carroll, C., Booth, A.: Quality assessment of qualitative evidence for systematic review and synthesis: is it meaningful, and if so, how should it be performed? Res. Synth. Methods 6(2), 149–154 (2015)CrossRef

Cruzes, D.S., Dyba, T.: Recommended steps for thematic synthesis in software engineering. In: Paper presented at the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, Banff (2011)

Daudt, H., van Mossel, C., Scott, S.: Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. Med Res Methodol 13(48), 1–9 (2013)

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 10(1), 45–53 (2005)CrossRef

Dixon-Woods, M., Bonas, S., Booth, A., Jones, D.R., Miller, T., Sutton, A.J., Young, B.: How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual. Res. 6(1), 27–44 (2006)CrossRef

Dixon-Woods, M., Booth, A., Sutton, A.J.: Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports. Qual. Res. 7(3), 375–422 (2007)CrossRef

Dixon-Woods, M., Fitzpatrick, R., Roberts, K.: Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: opportunities and problems. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 7(2), 125–133 (2001)CrossRef

Dixon-Woods, M., Shaw, R.L., Agarwal, S., Smith, J.A.: The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual. Saf. Health Care 13, 223–225 (2004). doi:10.1136/qshc.2003.008714 CrossRef

Finfgeld-Connett, D.: Use of content analysis to conduct knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Qual. Res. 14(3), 341–352 (2013)CrossRef

Finfgeld-Connett, D.: Metasynthesis findings: potential versus reality. Qual. Health Res. 24(11), 1581–1591 (2014)CrossRef

Frantzen, K.K., Fetters, M.D.: Meta-integration for synthesizing data in a systematic mixed studies review: insights from research on autism spectrum disorder. Qual. Quant. (2015). doi:10.1007/s11135-015-0261-6

Franzel, B., Schwiegershausen, M., Heusser, P., Berger, B.: How to locate and appraise qualitative research in complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 13(125), 1–10 (2013)

Green, S., Higgins, J.P.T., Alderson, P., Clarke, M., Mulrow, C.D., Oxman, A.D.: Introduction. In: Higgins, J.P., Green, S. (eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, pp. 3–9. Wiley, Chichesters (2008)

Hammerstrom, K., Wade, A., Klint Jorgensen, A.-M.: Searching for Studies: A Guide to Information Retrieval for Campbell Systematic Reviews, p. 74. The Campbell Collaboration, Oslo (2010)

Hannes, K. (2011). Chapter 4: critical appraisal of qualitative research. In: Noyes, J., Booth, A., Hannes, K., Harden, A., Harris, J., Lewin, S., & Lockwood, C. (eds), Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 1. Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group

Hannes, K., Claes, L.: Learn to read and write systematic reviews: the Belgian Campbell Group. Res. Soc. Work Pract. 17(6), 748–753 (2007). doi:10.1177/1049731507303106 CrossRef

Hannes, K., Harden, A.: Multi-context versus context-specific qualitative evidence syntheses: combining the best of both. Res. Synth. Methods 2(4), 271–278 (2011)CrossRef

Hannes, K., Lockwood, C. (eds.): Synthesizing Qualitative Research. Choosing the Right Approach. Wiley, West Sussex (2012)

Hannes, K., Lockwood, C., Pearson, A.: A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments’ ability to assess validity in qualitative research. Qual. Health Res. 12, 1736–1743 (2010). doi:10.1177/1049732310378656 CrossRef

Hannes, K., Macaitis, K.: A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis: update on a review of published papers. Qual. Res. 12(4), 402–442 (2012)CrossRef

Lee, R.P., Hart, R.I., Watson, R.M., Rapley, T.: Qualitative synthesis in practice: some pragmatics of meta-ethnography. Qual. Res. 15(3), 334–350 (2015)CrossRef

Major, C.H., Savin-Baden, M.: Integration of qualitative evidence: towards construction of academic knowledge in social science and professional fields. Qual. Res. 11(6), 645–663 (2011)CrossRef

Manning, N.: Conclusion. In: Hannes, K., Lockwood, C. (eds.) Synthesizing Qualitative Research. Choosing the Right Approach, pp. 161–171. Wiley, West Sussex (2012)CrossRef

Noyes, J., Popay, J.: Directly observed therapy and tuberculosis: how can a systematic review of qualitative research contribute to improving services? A qualitative meta-synthesis. J. Adv. Nurs. 57(3), 227–243 (2007)CrossRef

Noyes, J., Popay, J., Pearson, A., Hannes, K., Booth, A.: Chapter 20: qualitative research and Cochrane reviews. In: J. Higgins, S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: The Cochrane Collaboration (2008)

Papaioannou, D.: Assessing the evidence base. In: Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., Sutton, A. (eds.) Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review, pp. 97–124. Sage, London (2012)

Paterson, B.L.: It looks great but how do I know it fits?: an introduction to meta-synthesis research. In: Hannes, K., Lockwood, C. (eds.) Synthesizing Qualitative Research. Choosing the Right Approach, pp. 1–20. Wiley, West Sussex (2012)CrossRef

Pearson, A.: Balancing the evidence: incorporating the synthesis of qualitative data into systematic reviews. JBI Rep. 2, 45–64 (2004)CrossRef

Peters, M.D., Godfrey, C.M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., Soares, C.B.: Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int. J. Evidence-Based Healthc. 13(3), 141–146 (2015)CrossRef

Pham, M.T., Rajic, A., Greig, J.D., Sargeant, J.M., Papadopoulos, A., McEwen, S.A.: A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res. Synth. Methods 5(4), 371–385 (2014)CrossRef

Popay, J., Rogers, A., Williams, G.: Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qual. Health Res. 8(3), 341–351 (1998). doi:10.1177/104973239800800305 CrossRef

Ring, N., Ritchie, K., Mandava, L., Jepson, R.: A guide to synthesising qualitative research for researchers undertaking health technology assessments and systematic reviews: NHS Quality Improvement Scotland, University of Stirling, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health (2010)

Schneider, S.: Privatizing economic crime enforcement: exploring the role of private sector investigative agencies in combating money laundering. Polic. Soc. 16(3), 285–312 (2006)CrossRef

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Dillon, L.: Quality in qualitative evaluation: a framework for assessing research evidence. A quality framework, (pp. 18). London: Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office. Cabinet Office (2003)

Terpstra, J., Stokkom, B.V.: Plural policing in comparative perspective. Four models of regulation. Eur. J. Polic. Stud. 2(3), 325–343 (2015)

Thomas, J., Harden, A.: Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 8(45), 1–10 (2008)

Toye, F., Seers, K., Allcock, N., Briggs, M., Carr, E., Andrews, J., Barker, K.: Trying to pin down jelly—exploring intuitive processes in quality assessment for meta-ethnography. Med. Res. Methodol. 13(46), 1–12 (2013)

Verhage, A., Boels, D.: Systematische reviews van kwalitatief onderzoek binnen de criminologie. Panopticon 36(3), 302–311 (2015)

Titel: Critical appraisal of mixed methods research studies in a systematic scoping review on plural policing: assessing the impact of excluding inadequately reported studies by means of a sensitivity analysis
verfasst von: Antoinette Verhage
Dominique Boels
Publikationsdatum: 05.05.2016
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Quality & Quantity / Ausgabe 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0033-5177
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7845
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0345-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2017

European economies in terms of energy dependence

Categorical network models for systemic risk measurement

Item response theory requires logically unjustifiable assumptions

Inferential confidence intervals for fuzzy analysis of teaching satisfaction

Erratum to: Measuring corruption in Europe: public opinion surveys and composite indices

Stock market’s reaction to self-disclosure of work safety accidents: an empirical study in China

Premium Partner