Textual evidence systematic reviews series paper 3: critical appraisal of evidence from narrative, opinion, and policy.

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
JBI evidence synthesis Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-06 DOI:10.11124/JBIES-24-00293
Alexa McArthur, Adam Cooper, Deborah Edwards, Jitka Klugarova, Hu Yan, Brittany V Barber, Emily E Gregg, Lori E Weeks, Zoe Jordan
{"title":"Textual evidence systematic reviews series paper 3: critical appraisal of evidence from narrative, opinion, and policy.","authors":"Alexa McArthur, Adam Cooper, Deborah Edwards, Jitka Klugarova, Hu Yan, Brittany V Barber, Emily E Gregg, Lori E Weeks, Zoe Jordan","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>JBI has long held the view that an inclusive approach to the conceptualization of what counts as evidence is important to the evidence-based movement. JBI's approach for appraising textual evidence had encompassed all forms of text (narrative, opinion, and policy), with one general tool used to guide critical appraisal. The proliferation of textual evidence and increase in textual evidence reviews demonstrate the need to reconceptualize JBI's methodological approach to critically appraising textual evidence. The objective of this paper is to outline the updated methodological approach to systematic reviews of textual evidence, especially in relation to the development of 3 separate critical appraisal tools for narrative, expert opinion, and policy text. Using an adapted Delphi approach, the JBI Textual Evidence Methodology Group convened over several rounds of meetings and discussions with international experts to reach consensus on the reconceptualization of critical appraisal tools for textual evidence sources. Strategies to effectively interrogate the legitimacy and authenticity of sources were found to be dependent upon the type of textual evidence under review. Therefore, 3 separate critical appraisal tools for narrative, expert opinion, and policy text were developed. This paper provides an overview of the development of 3 separate critical appraisal tools, highlighting the complex nature of textual evidence data sources.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"833-839"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI evidence synthesis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00293","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

JBI has long held the view that an inclusive approach to the conceptualization of what counts as evidence is important to the evidence-based movement. JBI's approach for appraising textual evidence had encompassed all forms of text (narrative, opinion, and policy), with one general tool used to guide critical appraisal. The proliferation of textual evidence and increase in textual evidence reviews demonstrate the need to reconceptualize JBI's methodological approach to critically appraising textual evidence. The objective of this paper is to outline the updated methodological approach to systematic reviews of textual evidence, especially in relation to the development of 3 separate critical appraisal tools for narrative, expert opinion, and policy text. Using an adapted Delphi approach, the JBI Textual Evidence Methodology Group convened over several rounds of meetings and discussions with international experts to reach consensus on the reconceptualization of critical appraisal tools for textual evidence sources. Strategies to effectively interrogate the legitimacy and authenticity of sources were found to be dependent upon the type of textual evidence under review. Therefore, 3 separate critical appraisal tools for narrative, expert opinion, and policy text were developed. This paper provides an overview of the development of 3 separate critical appraisal tools, highlighting the complex nature of textual evidence data sources.

文本证据系统综述系列文件 3:对来自叙述、观点和政策的证据进行批判性评估。
长期以来,JBI一直认为,对什么是证据的概念化采取包容性的方法对循证运动很重要。JBI评估文本证据的方法涵盖了所有形式的文本(叙事、观点和政策),并使用一个通用工具来指导批判性评估。文本证据的激增和文本证据审查的增加表明,需要重新定义JBI批判性评估文本证据的方法方法。本文的目的是概述对文本证据进行系统审查的最新方法方法,特别是与叙事、专家意见和政策文本的三种独立批判性评估工具的发展有关。JBI文本证据方法论小组采用了经过调整的德尔菲法,与国际专家召开了几轮会议和讨论,就文本证据来源的关键评估工具的重新概念化达成共识。研究发现,有效地询问来源的合法性和真实性的策略取决于所审查的文本证据的类型。因此,开发了叙事、专家意见和政策文本三种独立的关键评估工具。本文概述了三种独立的关键评估工具的发展,突出了文本证据数据源的复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JBI evidence synthesis
JBI evidence synthesis Nursing-Nursing (all)
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
218
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信