You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 11, Issue 4
  • Study protocol of a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis using two different approaches: Healthcare related needs and desires of older people with post-stroke aphasia

Article Text

Article menu
XML
Geriatric medicine
Protocol
Study protocol of a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis using two different approaches: Healthcare related needs and desires of older people with post-stroke aphasia
  1. Nadine Janis Pohontsch1,
  2. Thorsten Meyer2,
  3. Yvonne Eisenmann3,
  4. Maria-Inti Metzendorf4,
  5. Verena Leve4,
  6. Veronika Lentsch5
  7. for the working group ‘Qualitative Methods in Health Services Research’ of the German Network of Health Services Research
  1. 1Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
  2. 2School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany
  3. 3Department of Palliative Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
  4. 4Institute of General Practice, Centre for Health and Society, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
  5. 5Berufsakademie Nord, University of Cooperative Education, Hamburg, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Nadine Janis Pohontsch; n.pohontsch{at}uke.de

Abstract

Introduction Stroke is a frequent disease in the older population of Western Europe with aphasia as a common consequence. Aphasia is known to impede targeting treatment to individual patients’ needs and therefore may reduce treatment success. In Germany, the postacute care of patients who had stroke is provided by different healthcare institutions of different sectors (rehabilitation, nursing and primary care) with substantial difficulties to coordinate services. We will conduct two qualitative evidence syntheses (QESs) aiming at exploring distinct healthcare needs and desires of older people living with poststroke aphasia. We thereby hope to support the development of integrated care models based on needs of patients who are very restricted to communicate them. Since various methods of QESs exist, the aim of the study embedding the two QESs was to determine if findings differ according to the approach used.

Methods and analysis We will conduct two QESs by using metaethnography (ME) and thematic synthesis (ThS) independently to synthesise the findings of primary qualitative studies. The main differences between these two methods are the underlying epistemologies (idealism (ME) vs realism (ThS)) and the type of research question (emerging (ME) vs fixed (ThS)).

We will search seven bibliographical databases. Inclusion criteria comprise: patients with poststroke aphasia, aged 65 years and older, studies in German/English, all types of qualitative studies concerning needs and desires related to healthcare or the healthcare system. The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines and includes three items from the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the synthesis of Qualitative Research checklist.

Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented on national conferences.

  • qualitative research
  • stroke
  • statistics & research methods
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039348

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Contributors NJP is the guarantor. VLen and NJP drafted the manuscript. M-IM designed the search strategy. All authors (NJP, TM, YE, M-IM, VLev and VLen) read, provided feedback on and approved the final manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.