Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Objectives: To demonstrate the benefits of applying meta ethnography to the synthesis of qualitative research, by means of a worked example. Methods:. Four papers about lay meanings of medicines were arbitrarily chosen. Noblit and Hare's seven-step process for conducting a meta ethnography was employed: getting started; deciding what is relevant to the initial interest; reading the studies; determining how the studies are related; translating the studies into one another; synthesising translations; and expressing the synthesis. Results: Six key concepts were identified: adherence/compliance; self-regulation; aversion; alternative coping strategies; sanctions; and selective disclosure. Four second-order interpretations (derived from the chosen papers) were identified, on the basis of which four third-order interpretations (based on the key concepts and second-order interpretations) were constructed. These were all linked together in a line of argument that accounts for patients' medicine-taking behaviour and communication with health professionals in different settings. Third-order interpretations were developed which were not only consistent with the original results but also extended beyond them. Conclusions: It is possible to use meta ethnography to synthesise the results of qualitative research. The worked example has produced middle-range theories in the form of hypotheses that could be tested by other researchers. © The Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd 2002.

Original publication




Journal article


Journal of Health Services Research and Policy

Publication Date





209 - 215