Responses

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
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Response to Dr. Manning's query
    • Nadine J. Pohontsch, Senior Scientist University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
    • Other Contributors:
      • Veronika Lentsch, Professor

    Dear Ms. Manning,
    thank you very much for your response and helpful comments to our study protocol.

    You point out that we might have missed to report on two important reviews conducted in the field of stroke survivors' needs. This might be due to our focus on stroke-related aphasia and the accordingly constructed search algorithm. Since the focus of our work will be the comparison of the results of two synthesis methods, we aimed to rule out that QES exist that duplicate our research question. Either way, thank you for pointing us to these important reviews. We will review those studies and use them to refine and inform our research algorithm if neccessary.

    We also want to apologize for not having reproduced the results of your study in an appropriate way. We will keep your critique in mind while conducting our QES using two different approaches.

    Best regards,

    the authors

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Brief query on "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" "

    Incorporating two parallel approaches, meta-ethnography and thematic synthesis, this protocol aims to contribute to the methodological discussion around qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) and will examinethe healthcare needs / preferences of older people with post-stroke aphasia. This is an important topic to address due to the general exclusion of this cohort in stroke studies, however the authors should review the existing QES relating to this topic to better discern the unique contribution that this review will bring.

    First, I am concerned by the omission of a number of related QES in the Introduction (e.g., (1) WRAY, F. & CLARKE, D. 2017. Longer-term needs of stroke survivors with communication difficulties living in the community: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ Open, 7; (2) GALLACHER, K., MORRISON, D., JANI, B., MACDONALD, S., MAY, C. R., MONTORI, V. M., ERWIN, P. J., BATTY, G. D., ETON, D. T., LANGHORNE, P. & MAIR, F. S. 2013. Uncovering treatment burden as a key concept for stroke care: a systematic review of qualitative research. PLoS Med, 10, e1001473.) Considering broader concepts around treatment burden and self-management support is essential when examining healthcare needs.

    Second, I am concerned by an apparent lack of engagement with the focus and findings of previous QES cited. For example, the authors write that Manning et al. (2019) "did not focus on healthcare needs or healthcare experi...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.