Volume 18, Issue 11 (February 2021)                   Nursing and Midwifery Journal 2021, 18(11): 840-847 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Feizi A, Soheili A. SPIDER: AN OPTIMAL FRAMEWORK FOR RETRIEVAL OF BEST QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE (EDITORIAL). Nursing and Midwifery Journal 2021; 18 (11) :840-847
URL: http://unmf.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-4324-en.html
SPIDER: AN OPTIMAL FRAMEWORK FOR RETRIEVAL OF BEST QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE (EDITORIAL)
Aram Feizi1 , Amin Soheili * 2
1- Associate Professor, Department of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Nursing, Khoy University of Medical Sciences, Khoy, Iran , soheili_a@khoyums.ac.ir
Abstract:   (4899 Views)
Evidence-based practice, as a new paradigm for healthcare practice and medical education, has become a core competence for the new century healthcare professionals and thereby, it is now possible for healthcare professionals to easily retrieve, critically appraise, and apply evidence from primary and secondary quantitative research. However, despite the increasing growth of qualitative research in the field of healthcare and the importance of the use of evidence from qualitative research in clinical decision-making and practice, the retrieval, appraisal, and application of qualitative evidence have been neglected in the principles of evidence-based practice. This editorial briefly introduces the SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type) framework as an alternative to the PICO (Population/Problem, Intervention/Exposure, Comparison/Control, Outcome) framework for systematic retrieval of qualitative evidence.
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Qualitative Research, Abstracting and Indexing, Information Storage and Retrieval
Full-Text [PDF 482 kb]   (1436 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Review article | Subject: متفرقه
References
1. Melnyk BM, Fineout-Overholt E, Stillwell SB, Williamson KM. Evidence-based practice: step by step: the seven steps of evidence-based practice. Am J Nurs 2010;110(1):51-3. [DOI:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000366056.06605.d2] [PMID]
2. Hallas D, Melnyk BM. Evidence-based practice: the paradigm shift. J Pediatr Health Care 2003;17(1):46-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0891-5245(02)88314-6 [DOI:10.1067/mph.2003.14] [PMID]
3. Stanley MJ, Dougherty JP. A paradigm shift in nursing education: a new model. Nurs Educ Perspect 2010;31(6):378-80. [PMID]
4. Parrish DE. Evidence-Based Practice: A Common Definition Matters. J Soc Work Educ 2018;54(3):407-11. [DOI:10.1080/10437797.2018.1498691]
5. Dorsch JL, Aiyer MK, Meyer LE. Impact of an evidence-based medicine curriculum on medical students' attitudes and skills. J Med Libr Assoc 2004;92(4):397-406. [] [PMID] [PMCID]
6. Cadmus E, Wynen EAV, Chamberlain B, Steingall P, Kilgallen ME, Holly C, et al. Nurses' skill level and access to evidence-based practice. J Nurs Adm 2008;38(11):494-503. [DOI:10.1097/01.NNA.0000339471.42596.18] [PMID]
7. Majid S, Foo S, Luyt B, Zhang X, Theng YL, Chang YK, et al. Adopting evidence-based practice in clinical decision making: nurses' perceptions, knowledge, and barriers. J Med Libr Assoc 2011;99(3):229-36. [DOI:10.3163/1536-5050.99.3.010] [PMID] [PMCID]
8. Fisher C, Cusack G, Cox K, Feigenbaum K, Wallen GR. Developing Competency to Sustain Evidence-Based Practice. J Nurs Adm 2016;46(11):581-5. [DOI:10.1097/NNA.0000000000000408] [PMID] [PMCID]
9. Polit PD, Beck CT. Essentials of nursing research: appraising evidence for nursing practice. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2018. [Google Scholar]
10. Speziale HS, Streubert HJ, Carpenter DR. Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011. [Google books]
11. Melnyk BM, Fineout-Overholt E. Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011. [Google books]
12. Noyes J, Booth A, Cargo M, Flemming K, Harden A, Harris J, et al. Chapter 21: Qualitative evidence. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.1 (updated September 2020): Cochrane; 2020. [URL]
13. Thomas J, Kneale D, McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Bhaumik S. Chapter 2: Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.1 (updated September 2020): Cochrane; 2020. [URL]
14. Cargo M, Harris J, Pantoja T, Booth A, Harden A, Hannes K, et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 4: methods for assessing evidence on intervention implementation. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;97:59-69. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.028] [PMID]
15. Noyes J, Booth A, Flemming K, Garside R, Harden A, Lewin S, et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;97:49-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.09.025 [DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.020]
16. Flemming K, Booth A, Garside R, Tunçalp Ö, Noyes J. Qualitative evidence synthesis for complex interventions and guideline development: clarification of the purpose, designs and relevant methods. BMJ Glob Health 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000882. [DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000882] [PMID] [PMCID]
17. Booth A, Moore G, Flemming K, Garside R, Rollins N, Tunçalp Ö, et al. Taking account of context in systematic reviews and guidelines considering a complexity perspective. BMJ Glob Health 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000840. [DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000840] [PMID] [PMCID]
18. Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Moore G, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh E. Formulating questions to explore complex interventions within qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Glob Health 2019;4(Suppl 1):e001107. [DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001107] [PMID] [PMCID]
19. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Ryan RE, Thomson HJ, Johnston RV, Thomas J. Chapter 3: Defining the criteria for including studies and how they will be grouped for the synthesis. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.1 (updated September 2020): Cochrane; 2020. [URL]
20. Glasziou PP, Del-Mar C, Salisbury J. Evidence-based practice workbook. 2nd ed. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing Inc; 2007. [URL]
21. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, Littlewood A, Marshall C, Metzendorf MI, et al. Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.1 (updated September 2020): Cochrane; 2020. [URL]
22. Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res 2012;22(10):1435-43. [DOI:10.1177/1049732312452938] [PMID]
23. Booth A. Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice. Library Hi Tech 2006;24(3):355-68. [DOI:10.1108/07378830610692127]
24. Wildridge V, Bell L. How CLIP became ECLIPSE: a mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/ management information. Health Info Libr J 2002;19(2):113-5. [DOI:10.1046/j.1471-1842.2002.00378.x] [PMID]
25. Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, McNally R, Cheraghi-Sohi S. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:579. [DOI:10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0] [PMID] [PMCID]
26. Barroso J, Gollop CJ, Sandelowski M, Meynell J, Pearce PF, Collins LJ. The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies. West J Nurs Res 2003;25(2):153-78. [DOI:10.1177/0193945902250034] [PMID]
27. McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Developing optimal search strategies for retrieving qualitative studies in PsycINFO. Eval Health Prof 2006;29(4):440-54. [DOI:10.1177/0163278706293400] [PMID]
28. Soilemezi D, Linceviciute S. Synthesizing Qualitative Research: Reflections and Lessons Learnt by Two New Reviewers. Int J Qual Methods 2018;17(1):1-14. [DOI:10.1177/1609406918768014]
29. Frandsen TF, Gildberg FA, Tingleff EB. Searching for qualitative health research required several databases and alternative search strategies: a study of coverage in bibliographic databases. J Clin Epidemiol 2019;114:118-24. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.013] [PMID]
Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Nursing And Midwifery Journal

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb