Jämför metoder
Granska de valda metoderna sida vid sida; rader som skiljer sig är markerade.
| Protokollbaserad metaetnografi× | Scoping Review× | |
|---|---|---|
| Ämnesområde | Scientometri | Scientometri |
| Familj | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Ursprungsår≠ | 1988 (meta-ethnography); protocol-based practice formalised 2010s | 2005 |
| Upphovsperson≠ | Noblit & Hare (meta-ethnography); protocol registration formalised through PROSPERO and eMERGe guidance | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| Typ≠ | Qualitative evidence synthesis with pre-registered protocol | Evidence synthesis review design |
| Ursprungskälla≠ | Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Sage. ISBN: 978-0803930742 | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ |
| Alias | pre-registered meta-ethnography, prospero meta-ethnography, registered qualitative synthesis, protocol-driven meta-ethnography | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| Närliggande≠ | 5 | 6 |
| Sammanfattning≠ | Protocol-based meta-ethnography is a structured qualitative evidence synthesis that follows Noblit and Hare's meta-ethnography method while requiring a pre-registered, publicly available protocol — typically on PROSPERO — before the review is conducted. Pre-registration constrains post-hoc decision-making, enhances methodological transparency, and aligns qualitative synthesis with the rigour standards now expected by leading journals and funders. | A scoping review is a systematic evidence-synthesis method that maps the breadth and nature of research on a topic — identifying key concepts, evidence types, and gaps — without necessarily appraising study quality or pooling effect sizes. Developed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and refined by Levac and colleagues (2010), it is particularly valuable for emerging or heterogeneous fields where a full systematic review would be premature or infeasible. |
| ScholarGateDatamängd ↗ |
|
|