Palavras-chave
Como Citar
Resumo
Sínteses de evidências qualitativas (SEQs) têm sido crescente-mente utilizadas na área da saúde e novos métodos têm prolife-rado. O aumento da demanda por SEQs é impulsionado principal-mente pelo reconhecimento de que evidências sobre efetividade não são suficientes para melhorar a saúde, sendo preciso agregar evidências sobre as percepções dos envolvidos, além da viabili-dade e componentes contextuais que obstaculizam ou favorecem implementação e equidade – categorias melhor exploradas por metodologias qualitativas. Este artigo introdutório fornece um pa-norama sobre o tema, servindo também como um roteiro para as metodologias de SEQs. Primeiramente, apresentamos elementos sobre pesquisa qualitativa primária, paradigmas, tipos de pergun-tas e metodologias adequadas para respondê-las. Em seguida, fornecemos informações sobre o que são SEQs, os tipos de per-guntas que elas ajudam a responder, em contextos de políticas e tomada de decisões em saúde, além de exemplos sobre seu uso em processos de desenvolvimento de diretrizes e para fins de ava-liação de tecnologias em saúde. Por fim, disponibilizamos um guia sintético sobre onde encontrar orientações metodológicas para a condução de diferentes aspectos do processo de revisão, incluin-do como formular uma pergunta, buscar na literatura, escolher um método de síntese, avaliar a confiança nos resultados de estudos primários e achados da revisão e relatar uma SEQ.
Referências
Booth A. Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1). doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x
Malterud K. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet. 2001;358(9280):483-8.
Snape D, Spencer L. The Foundations of Qualitative Re-search. In: Ritchie J, Lewis J, editors. Qualitative Research Practice A Guide for Social Science Students and Resear-chers. SAGE; 2009.
Minayo MCdeS, Costa AP. Técnicas que fazem uso da palavra, do olhar e da empatia: pesquisa qualitativa em ação. Aveiro: Ludomedia; 2019.
Carroll C. Qualitative evidence synthesis to improve im-plementation of clinical guideline. BMJ. 2017;356:j80 doi: 10.1136/bmj.j80
Soares CB. Revisão qualitativa da literatura com enfoque na revisão sistemática. In: Costa AP, coordenador. Revisão da literatura com apoio de software: contribuição da pesqui-sa qualitativa. Aveiro: Ludomedia; 2019.
Soares CB, Yonekura T, Campos CMS. Marxismo como referencial teórico-metodológico em saúde coletiva: impli-cações para a revisão sistemática e síntese de evidências. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2013; 47(6):1403-1409.
Prasad P. Crafting qualitative research: working in the post positivist traditions. New York: Routledge; 2015.
Cordeiro L, Soares CB, Rittenmeyer L. Unscrambling method and methodology in action research traditions: theoretical conceptualization of praxis and emancipation. Qualitative Research. 2017;17(4):395–407. https://doi. org/10.1177/1468794116674771
Guba EC. The alternative paradigm dialog. In: Guba EC, org. The paradigm dialog. Newbury London: Sage Publica-tions; 1990:17-27.
Minayo MCS. O desafio do conhecimento: pesquisa qua-litativa em saúde. 3. ed. São Paulo: Hucitec-Abrasco; 1992.
Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, Editors. The handbook of quali-tative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2011.
Willis JW. Foundations of qualitative research: interpreti-ve and critical approaches. London: Sage; 2007.
Sodelli M. Aproximando sentidos: formação de profes-sores, educação, drogas e ações redutoras de vulnerabili-dade [tese]. São Paulo: Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo; 2006.
Nakamura E. The ethnographic method in health rese-arches: an anthropological thinking. Saúde e Sociedade. 2011; 20(1):95-103.
Wainwright M. Sensing the airs: The cultural-context for breathing and breathlessness in Uru-guay. Medical Anthropology. 2017; 36(4):332-347. Doi: 10.1080/01459740.2017.1287180
Hutchinson A., Barclay-Klingle, N., Galvin, K., Johnson, M.J. Living with breathlessness: a systematic literature review and qualitative synthesis. Eur Respir J. 2018;51:1701477 [https://doi.org/ 10.1183/13993003.01477-2017].
Souza HS, Mendes ÁN. A terceirização e o “desmonte” do emprego estável em hospitais. Rev. Esc. Enferm. USP [internet]. 2016[acesso em 20 jan 2019];50(2):286-294.
D i s p o n í v e l : h t t p : // d x . d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 5 9 0 / S0080-623420160000200015.
Santos VC, Soares CB, Campos CMS. A relação traba- lho-saúde de enfermeiros do PSF no município de São Pau- lo. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2007;41:777–781.
Campos CMS. Necessidades de saúde pela voz da socieda- de civil (os moradores) e do Estado (os trabalhadores de saúde) [tese]. São Paulo: Escola de Enfermagem da USP; 2004.
Sousa MSA. Consórcio Brasileiro ‘Neoplasia Endócri- na Múltipla Tipo 2’: Medicina Translacional, Bioética e So- ciedade [tese]. São Paulo: Escola Paulista de Medicina da UNIFESP; 2015. Disponível em: http://repositorio.unifesp. br/handle/11600/48737
Geertz C. Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Au- thor. Stanford University Press; 1988.
Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care. As- sessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;320:50-2.
Meihy JCSB, Holanda F. História oral: como fazer, como pensar. São Paulo: Contexto; 2007.
Meihy JCSB, Ribeiro SLS. Guia prático de história oral: para empresas, universidades, comunidades e famílias. São Paulo: Contexto; 2011.
Maciel RMB, Camacho CP, Assumpção LVM, et al. Ge- notype and phenotype landscape of MEN2 in 554 medullary thyroid cancer patients: the BrasMEN study. Endocrine Con- nections. 2019;8(3):289-298.
Cordeiro L, Soares CB, Rittenmeyer L. Unscrambling method and methodology in action research traditions: theoretical conceptualization of praxis and emancipation. Qualitative Research. 2017;17(4):395–407. https://doi. org/10.1177/1468794116674771
Toledo RF, Rosa TEC, Keinert TM, Cortizo CT, organiza- dores. Pesquisa Participativa em Saúde: vertentes e vere- das. São Paulo: Instituto de Saúde; 2018;24:153-165.
Bergold J, Thomas S. Participatory Research Metho- ds: A Methodological Approach in Motion. Forum: Quali- tative Social Research. 2012;[l.]:13(1). Available at: .
Cajardo M. Pesquisa participante: propostas e projetos. In: Brandão CR, organizador. Repensando a pesquisa parti- cipante. 3.ed. São Paulo: Brasiliense; 1987:15-50.
Haguete TMF. Metodologias qualitativas na sociologia. 3.ed. Petrópolis: Vozes; 1992.
Borda OF. Aspectos teóricos da pesquisa participante: considerações sobre o significado e o papel da ciência na participação popular. In: Brandão CR, org. Pesquisa partici- pante. São Paulo: Brasiliense; 1981:42-62.
Peruzzo CMK. Da observação participante à pesquisa-
-ação: pressupostos epistemológicos e metodológicos. Apresentado no III Colóquio Brasil-Itália de Ciências da Co- municação, realizado em Belo Horizonte – MG 2 e 3 de se- tembro de 2003. Promoção: INTERCOM – Sociedade Brasi- leira de Estudos Interdisciplinares da Comunicação.
Vecchia MD, Martins STF. Concepções dos cuida- dos em saúde mental por uma equipe de saúde da famí- lia, em perspectiva histórico-cultural. Ciênc. saúde cole- tiva. 2009;14(1):183-193. Disponível em: http://dx.doi. org/10.1590/S1413-81232009000100024.
Booth A. Harnessing Energies, Resolving Tensions: Ack- nowledging a Dual Heritage for Qualitative Evidence Syn- thesis. Qualitative Health Research. 2019;29(1):18-31. ht- tps://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318808247
Popay J, Rogers A, Williams G. Rationale and stan- dards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Research. 1998;8(3):341-351.
Langlois EV, Tunçalp Ö, Norris SL, Askew I, Ghaffar
A. Qualitative evidence to improve guidelines and heal- th decision-making. Bulletin of the World Health Organi- zation. 2018;96:79-79A. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/ BLT.17.206540
Glenton C, Lewin S, Norris SL. WHO handbook for guide- line development. Switzerland: WHO; 2014.
Lewin S, Glenton C. Are we entering a new era for qualita- tive research? Using qualitative evidence to support guidan- ce and guideline development by the World Health Organiza- tion International. Journal for Equity in Health. 2018;17:126 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-018-0841-x
World Health Organization. World health recommenda- tions on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience. Geneva; 2016.
Downe S, Finlayson K, Tuncalp Ö, Metin Gulmezoglu A. What matters to women: a systematic scoping review to identify the processes and outcomes of antenatal care pro- vision that are important to healthy pregnant women. BJOG. 2016;123(4): 529–39.4
Downe S, Finlayson K, Tunçalp Ö, Gülmezoglu AM. Fac- tors that influence the uptake of routine antenatal services by pregnant women: a qualitative evidence synthesis (Pro- tocol). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10: CD012392.
Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, Britten N, Pill R, Morgan M, et al. Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of quali-tative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Social Science & Medicine. 2003;56:671-84.
Eaton SE. Reading Strategy: Differences between sum-marising and synthesising information. 2010. Available from: https://www.scribd.com/doc/38175256/Differences-
Silva AS, Sousa MSA, Silva EV, Galato D. Participação Social no Processo de Incorporação de Tecnologias em Saú-de no SUS. Rev de Saúde Pública. 2019. No prelo.
Barreto J, Lewin S. Using qualitative evidence to inform decisions in Brazil and the Latin American region. BIS, Bol Inst. Saúde. 2019. No prelo.
Macura B, Suškevicˇ s M, Garside R, Hannes K, Rees R, Rodela R. Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence for environmental policy and management: an overview of di-fferent methodological options. Environmental Evidence. 2019;8:24.
Downe S, Finlayson KW, Lawrie TA, Lewin SA, Glenton C, Rosenbaum S, Barriex M, Tuncalp Ö. Qualitative Evidence Synthesis for Guidelines: Paper 1 - Using Qualitative Eviden-ce Synthesis to Inform Guideline Scope and Develop Quali-tative Findings Statements. Health Research Policy and Sys-tems. 2019. In press.
Lewin SA, Glenton C, Lawrie TA, Downe S, Finlayson KW, Rosenbaum S, Barriex M, Tuncalp Ö. Qualitative Evi-dence Synthesis for Guidelines: Paper 2 - Using Qualitative Evidence Synthesis Findings to Inform Evidence-to-Decision Frameworks and Recommendations. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2019. In press.
Glenton C, Lewin SA, Lawrie TA, Barriex M, Downe S, Finlayson KW, Tamrat T, Rosenbaum S, Tuncalp Ö. Quali-tative Evidence Synthesis for Guidelines: Paper 3 - Using Qualitative Evidence Syntheses to Develop Implementation Considerations and Inform Implementation Processes. He-alth Research Policy and Systems. 2019. In press.
Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. NCRM Working Paper. NCRM. 2009. Available from: http://eprints.ncrm. ac.uk/690/
Hannes K, Lockwood C. Synthesizing Qualitative Rese-arch: Choosing the Right Approach John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Chichester (UK); 2012.
Ring N, Ritchie K, Mandava L, Jepson R. A guide to syn-thesising qualitative research for researchers undertakinghealth technology assessments and systematic reviews. 2010. Available from: http://www.nhshealthquality.org/nhs-qis/8837.html
Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthe-sis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;10(8):45 http://ukpmc.ac.uk/article-render.cgi?artid=1593387
Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesising qualitative studies Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. 1988:88.
Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, et al. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2006;6(35).
Lockwood C, Munn Z, Porritt K. Qualitative research syn-thesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. International journal of evidence-
Aromataris E, Munn Z, Editors. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute 2017. Avai-lable from https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/
Dixon-Woods M. Using framework-based synthesis for conducting reviews of qualitative studies. BMC Med. 2011;14(9):39.
Carroll C, Booth A, Leaviss J, Rick J. “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method. BMC Medical Research Me-thodology. 2013;13(1):1-16.
Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Gerhardus A, Wahlster P, van der Wilt GJ, et al. Structured methodology review identi-fied seven (RETREAT) criteria for selecting qualitative eviden-ce synthesis approaches. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;99:41-52.
Flemming K, Booth A, Garside R, Tunçalp Ö, Noyes J. Qualitative evidence synthesis for complex interventions and guideline development: clarification of the purpose, design and relevant methods. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4:e000882. doi:10.1136/ bmjgh-2018-000882
Noyes J, Booth A, Flemming K, Gerhardus A, Wahlster P, van der Wilt GJ, et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Imple-mentation Methods Group guidance paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findin-gs J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 97:49-58
Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Gerhardus A, Wahlster P, Van Der Wilt GJ, Mozygemba K, Refolo P, Sacchini D, Tum-mers M, Rehfuess E. Guidance on choosing qualitative evi-dence synthesis methods for use in health technology as-sessments of complex interventions. 2016. Available from: http://www.integrate-hta.eu/downloads/
Kastner M, Antony J, Soobiah C, et al. Conceptual re-commendations for selecting the most appropriate know-ledge synthesis method to answer research questions rela-ted to complex evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2016;73:43-49.
Hoga LAK, Matheus MCC, Soares CB. Metassíntese: síntese de estudos qualitativos. In Enfermagem baseada em evidências. São Paulo: Barbosa, Dulce; Taminato, Môni-ca; Fram, Dayana; Belasco, Angélica. 2014;105-116.
Noyes J, Hannes K, Booth A, Harris J, Harden A, Popay J, Pearson A, Cargo M, and Pantoja T on behalf of the Cochra-ne Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group. Chapter 20: Qualitative research and Cochrane reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.3.0 (updated October 2015). The Cochrane Collaboration. 2015. Available from http://qim.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance [Current update process January 2018 onwards]
Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: The SPIDER Tool for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(10):1435-1443.
Harris JL, Booth A, Cargo M, Hannes K, Harden A, Flem-ming K, Garside R, Pantoja T, Thomas J, Noyes J. Cochra-ne Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidan-ce series-paper 2: methods for question formulation, se-arching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:39-48. doi: 10.1016/j. jclinepi.2017.10.023.
Lockwood C, Porrit K, Munn Z, Rittenmeyer L, Salmond S, Bjerrum M, … Stannard D. Systematic reviews of quali-tative evidence. In E. Aromataris & Z. Munn, orgs, Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. The Joanna Briggs Ins-titute. 2017. Recuperado de https://reviewersmanual.joan-nabriggs.org/
Centre for Review and Dissemination. Guidance notes for registering a systematic review protocol with PROSPE-RO [internet]. 2016. Disponível em: https://www.crd.york. ac.uk/PROSPERO/documents/Registering a review on PROSPERO.pdf
Butler A, Hall H, Copnell B. A Guide to Writing a Quali-tative Systematic Review Protocol to Enhance Evidence-Ba-sed Practice in Nursing and Health Care. Worldviews on Evi-dence-Based Nursing. 2016;3(3):241–249. doi:10.1111/wvn.12134
Noyes J, Hendry M, Booth A, Chandler J, Lewin S, Glenton C, Garside R. Current use was established and Cochrane guidance on selection of social theories for syste-matic reviews of complex interventions was developed. Jour-nal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2016;75:78-92. doi:10.1016/j. jclinepi.2015.12.009
Matheus MCC, Hoga LAK, Soares CB. Projeto de revi-são sistemática e estudos qualitativos (RSEQ). In: Barbo-sa D, Taminato M, Fram D, Belasco A, organizadores. En-fermagem Baseada em Evidências. São Paulo: Atheneu; 2014:93-103.
Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Carlsen B, Col-vin CJ, Gülmezoglu M, ... Booth A, Rashidian A. Using qua-litative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findin-gs from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Med. 2015;12(10):e1001895.
Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, et al. Applying GRADE-CER-Qual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3.
Munthe-Kaas H, Bohren MA, Glenton C, Lewin S, Noyes J, Tunçalp Ö, Booth A, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qua-litative evidence synthesis findings-paper 3: how to assess methodological limitations. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0690-9.
Colvin CJ, Garside R, Wainwright M, Munthe-Kaas H, Glenton C, Bohren MA, Carlsen B, Tunçalp Ö, Noyes J, Boo-th A, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 4: how to assess coherence. Imple-ment Sci. 2018;13(1):13. doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0691-8
Noyes J, Booth A, Lewin S, et al. Applying GRADE-CER-Qual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data. Implement Sci. 2018;13 (1):4. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0693- 6
Glenton C, Carlsen B, Lewin S, Munthe-Kaas H, Colvin CJ, Tunçalp Ö, Bohren MA, Noyes J, Booth A, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-
paper 5: how to assess adequacy of data. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0692-7.
Lewin S, Bohren M, Rashidian A, Munthe-Kaas H, Glen-ton C, Colvin CJ, Garside R, Noyes J, Booth A, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings--paper 2: how to make an overall CERQual assessment of confidence and create a Summary of Qualitative Findin-gs table. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0689-2.
Munn Z, Porritt K, Lockwood C, Aromataris E, Pear-son A. Establishing confidence in the output of qualitati-ve research synthesis: The ConQual approach. BMCMedi-cal Research Methodology. 2014;14(108):1-7. https://doi. org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-108.
Majid U., Vanstone M. Appraising Qualitative Rese-arch for Syntheses: A Compedium of Quality Appaisal Tools. Qual Health Res. 2018;28(13):2115-2131. doi: 10.1177/1049732318785358.
Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhan-cing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2012;12(1):181.
France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, Uny I, Duncan EAS, Jepson RG, Maxwell M, Roberts RJ, Turley RL, Booth A, et al. Improving reporting of Metaethnography: the eMERGe repor-ting guidance. J Adv Nurs. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13809.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(6):e1000097
Booth A. ‘‘Brimful of STARLITE’’: toward standar-ds for reporting literature search. J Med Libr Assoc.
;94(4):421-429.
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2019 Maria Sharmila A. de Sousa , Megan Wainwright, Cassia Baldini Soares