Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Content Analysis in Systematic Reviews

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Application of Content Analysis in Nursing Science Research

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  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. Aromataris E, Pearson A. The systematic review: an overview. Am J Nurs. 2014;114:53–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pearson A, Wiechula R, Lockwood C. The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2005;3:207–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual. 2014 ed. University of Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  5. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2018 ed. Cochrane Training; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Stern C, Jordan Z, McArthur A. Developing the review question and inclusion criteria. Am J Nurs. 2014;114:53–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Aromataris E, Riitano D. Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. Am J Nurs. 2014;114:49–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Porritt K, Gomersall J, Lockwood C, et al. Am J Nurs. 2014;114:47–52.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Critical Appraisal Tools. Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). 2017. https://joannabriggs.org/critical_appraisal_tools.

  18. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E. Data extraction and synthesis. Am J Nurs. 2014;114:49–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62:107–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Robertson-Malt S. Presenting and interpreting findings. Am J Nurs. 2014;114:49–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. EQUATOR Network, Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of health Research. 2019. http://www.equator-network.org/.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Paul P. Transition from novice adjunct to experienced associate degree nurse educator: a comparative qualitative approach. Teach Learn Nurs. 2015;10:3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Unit of Nursing Science and Health Management, Oulu University, Oulu, Finland

    Kristina Mikkonen & Maria Kääriäinen

  2. Medical Research Center Oulu, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland

    Maria Kääriäinen

  3. The Finnish Centre for Evidence-Based Health Care, A Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, Helsinki, Finland

    Maria Kääriäinen

Authors
  1. Kristina Mikkonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Kääriäinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristina Mikkonen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Research Unit of Nursing Science and Health Management, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

    Helvi Kyngäs

  2. Research Unit of Nursing Science and Health Management, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

    Kristina Mikkonen

  3. Research Unit of Nursing Science and Health Management, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

    Maria Kääriäinen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mikkonen, K., Kääriäinen, M. (2020). Content Analysis in Systematic Reviews. In: Kyngäs, H., Mikkonen, K., Kääriäinen, M. (eds) The Application of Content Analysis in Nursing Science Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30199-6_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30199-6_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-30198-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-30199-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation