Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGarside, Ruthen_GB
dc.date.accessioned2010-11-25T11:41:57Zen_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-01-25T17:21:26Zen_GB
dc.date.accessioned2013-03-21T11:42:57Z
dc.date.issued2008-06-18en_GB
dc.description.abstractSystematic reviews and meta-analysis have been a central pillar of evidence-based practice and policy making in healthcare over recent years. Traditionally, this has focused on effectiveness evidence from trials. There is increasing understanding, however, that other study designs also provide essential information and this has led to interest in developing ways to review and synthesis such evidence. Qualitative research has unique potential to illuminate the patient experience.en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10036/116289en_GB
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.subjectsystematic reviewen_GB
dc.subjectMeta-analysisen_GB
dc.subjectQualitative Researchen_GB
dc.subjectpolicy-makingen_GB
dc.subjecthysterectomyen_GB
dc.subjectmenstrual bleedingen_GB
dc.subjectevidence based practiceen_GB
dc.titleA Comparison of methods for the Systematic Review of Qualitative Research : Two Examples Using Meta-Ethnography and Meta-Studyen_GB
dc.typeThesis or dissertationen_GB
dc.date.available2010-11-25T11:41:57Zen_GB
dc.date.available2011-01-25T17:21:26Zen_GB
dc.date.available2013-03-21T11:42:57Z


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record