Advertisement

Content Analysis in Systematic Reviews

  • Kristina MikkonenEmail author
  • Maria Kääriäinen
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter aims to present a methodological example of how content analysis can be applied to systematic reviews of nursing science research. The chapter will explain why systematic reviews are conducted in the field of nursing science, present the methodological rigidness of the systematic review, and later detail how content analysis can be used to examine chosen original studies. This chapter also includes a practical example that will guide the reader through the analytical process.

The quality of the presented review—in which content analysis is employed for data synthesis—is also critically discussed.

Keywords

Content analysis Data synthesis Systematic review 

References

  1. 1.
    Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: University of York: CRD; 2009.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aromataris E, Pearson A. The systematic review: an overview. Am J Nurs. 2014;114:53–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pearson A, Wiechula R, Lockwood C. The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2005;3:207–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual. 2014 ed. University of Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2014.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2018 ed. Cochrane Training; 2018.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weaver K, Olson JK. Understanding paradigms used for nursing research. J Adv Nurs. 2009;53(4):459–69.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03740.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stern C, Jordan Z, McArthur A. Developing the review question and inclusion criteria. Am J Nurs. 2014;114:53–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Konttila J, Siira H, Kyngäs H, Lahtinen M, Elo S, Kääriäinen M, Kaakinen P, Oikarinen A, Yamakawa M, Fukui S, Utsumi M, Higami Y, Higuchi A, Mikkonen K. Healthcare professionals’ competence in digitalization: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2018;1–17.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aromataris E, Riitano D. Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. Am J Nurs. 2014;114:49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mikkonen K, Elo S, Tuomikoski AM, Kääriäinen M. Mentor experiences of international healthcare students’ learning in a clinical environment: a systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;40:87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.02.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mikkonen K, Elo S, Kuivila HM, Tuomikoski AM, Kääriäinen M. Culturally and linguistically diverse healthcare students’ experiences of learning in a clinical environment: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;54:173–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.06.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Averis A, Pearson A. Filling the gaps: identifying nursing research priorities through the analysis of completed systematic reviews. JBI Reports. 2003;1:49–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Porritt K, Gomersall J, Lockwood C, et al. Am J Nurs. 2014;114:47–52.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26: 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Critical Appraisal Tools. Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). 2017. https://joannabriggs.org/critical_appraisal_tools.
  18. 18.
    Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E. Data extraction and synthesis. Am J Nurs. 2014;114:49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62:107–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robertson-Malt S. Presenting and interpreting findings. Am J Nurs. 2014;114:49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    EQUATOR Network, Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of health Research. 2019. http://www.equator-network.org/.
  24. 24.
    Ellot D, Campbell T. “Really on the ball”: exploring the implications of teachers’ PE-CPD experience. Sport Educ Soc. 2017;20(3):381–97.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2013.765400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paul P. Transition from novice adjunct to experienced associate degree nurse educator: a comparative qualitative approach. Teach Learn Nurs. 2015;10:3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Unit of Nursing Science and Health ManagementOulu UniversityOuluFinland
  2. 2.Medical Research Center Oulu, Oulu University HospitalOuluFinland
  3. 3.The Finnish Centre for Evidence-Based Health Care, A Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of ExcellenceHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations