↓ Skip to main content

A Guide to Writing a Qualitative Systematic Review Protocol to Enhance Evidence‐Based Practice in Nursing and Health Care

Overview of attention for article published in Worldviews on evidence-based nursing (Online), January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#25 of 645)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
30 X users

Readers on

mendeley
1159 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
A Guide to Writing a Qualitative Systematic Review Protocol to Enhance Evidence‐Based Practice in Nursing and Health Care
Published in
Worldviews on evidence-based nursing (Online), January 2016
DOI 10.1111/wvn.12134
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The qualitative systematic review is a rapidly developing area of nursing research. In order to present trustworthy, high-quality recommendations, such reviews should be based on a review protocol to minimize bias and enhance transparency and reproducibility. Although there are a number of resources available to guide researchers in developing a quantitative review protocol, very few resources exist for qualitative reviews. To guide researchers through the process of developing a qualitative systematic review protocol, using an example review question. The key elements required in a systematic review protocol are discussed, with a focus on application to qualitative reviews: Development of a research question; formulation of key search terms and strategies; designing a multistage review process; critical appraisal of qualitative literature; development of data extraction techniques; and data synthesis. The paper highlights important considerations during the protocol development process, and uses a previously developed review question as a working example. This paper will assist novice researchers in developing a qualitative systematic review protocol. By providing a worked example of a protocol, the paper encourages the development of review protocols, enhancing the trustworthiness and value of the completed qualitative systematic review findings. Qualitative systematic reviews should be based on well planned, peer reviewed protocols to enhance the trustworthiness of results and thus their usefulness in clinical practice. Protocols should outline, in detail, the processes which will be used to undertake the review, including key search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the methods used for critical appraisal, data extraction and data analysis to facilitate transparency of the review process. Additionally, journals should encourage and support the publication of review protocols, and should require reference to a protocol prior to publication of the review results.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 1157 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 191 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 98 8%
Student > Bachelor 95 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 70 6%
Researcher 60 5%
Other 180 16%
Unknown 465 40%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 250 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 115 10%
Social Sciences 75 6%
Psychology 67 6%
Arts and Humanities 19 2%
Other 149 13%
Unknown 484 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 October 2025.
All research outputs
#1,352,619
of 33,945,077 outputs
Outputs from Worldviews on evidence-based nursing (Online)
#25
of 645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,931
of 448,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Worldviews on evidence-based nursing (Online)
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,945,077 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 645 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 448,889 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.