OBJECTIVES

Qualitative research into patient experiences of illness or disease facilitates understanding of patient needs and may be used to determine priorities for treatment development. The inclusion of poor quality studies in qualitative literature reviews (QLR) may contribute unreliable data, yielding inaccurate conclusions and a false understanding of disease burden. This review sought to identify how quality assessment (QA) checklists are currently used in QLRs of patient experience and to identify gaps in research standards.

METHODS

A targeted literature review was conducted in Embase and Medline databases to identify published QLRs of patient experiences of any illness or disease. A specific search strategy combined ‘qualitative literature review’ terms and ‘patient experience’ terms. No publication year or language limits were applied. Details of QA in included papers were extracted and reviewed.

RESULTS

Database searches identified 50 unique articles. A total of 16 unique studies which reported the development of conceptual models, patient pathways, or meta syntheses using qualitative research identified via QLR were included in the literature review. Thirteen studies conducted QA with ≥1 checklist; seven using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist, four the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-QARI), two a checklist published by Popay, Williams, and Rogers, and one the British Sociological Association criteria. However, only 6/16 studies reported using QA to exclude poor quality studies from synthesis or to assess the reliability of the review.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality assessment checklists are commonly used in QLRs of illness experience, with the CASP and JBI-QARI checklists most frequently utilised. However, there is currently no ‘gold standard’ QA checklist for use in QLRs and many researchers do not use QA comprehensively; only 38% studies used QA results to improve or inform research quality. Industry guidance on the use of QA in literature reviews to develop conceptual models may be beneficial.