4.4 Review

Redefined by illness: meta-ethnography of qualitative studies on the experience of rheumatoid arthritis

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 36, Issue 13, Pages 1061-1071

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2013.829531

Keywords

Adaptation; arthritis; chronic; coping; illness and disease; lived experience

Categories

Funding

  1. UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (Research Methodology Programme) [99/53/07]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To synthesize published qualitative studies concerning the lived experience of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To compare the conceptual features of qualitative studies covering two different time periods. Methods: In 2002, 24 items published 1975-2001 were identified in comprehensive literature searches and assessed by multiple reviewers. In 2010, the first author found 28 articles published 2002-2009 in a simple search of the Medline database and synthesized them alone. Articles were synthesized using meta-ethnography. Results: Both syntheses found that the main symptoms of RA are variable and unpredictable. However, in the first synthesis a sociological model dominated where RA was seen as an assault on self-identity with devastating social consequences. The main concepts were biographical disruption, role incompetence and the dread of dependency on others. In the second synthesis, the findings produced a model for health care practitioners tied to perceptions of control and incorporating a career-adaptation model of the experience of RA. Conclusions: We recommend that future synthesizers and primary qualitative health researchers focus more on non-hospital based populations and non-English language articles or study participants. The implications for rehabilitation follow from reflecting the findings of the synthesis against existing psychological models of coping and adaptation in RA.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available