Narrative approaches to systematic review and synthesis of evidence for international development policy and practice

Journal of Development Effectiveness

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 409-429

  Snilstveit, Birte ^a,b   Oliver, Sandy ^c   Vojtkova, Martina ^a  

^a Campbell International Development Coordinating Group   (United Kingdom)

^b London International Development Centre   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

development effectiveness; evidence based policy; narrative synthesis; qualitative synthesis; systematic review

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; POLICY ANALYSIS;

EID: 84866717816     PISSN: 19439342     EISSN: 19439407     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19439342.2012.710641     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Atkins, S. 2008. Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: lessons learnt. BMC medical research methodology, 8(21) doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-21
2. Barnett-Page, E. and Thomas, J. 2009. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC medical research methodology, 9(59) doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-59
3. Basu, S. 2012. Comparative performance of private and public healthcare systems in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. PLoS medicine, 9(6): e1001244 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001244
4. Berendes, S., et al., 2011. Quality of private and public ambulatory health care in low and middle income countries: systematic review of comparative studies. PLoS medicine [online], 8 (4), e1000433. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000433(Accessed: 23 June 2012).
5. Berg, B.L. 2009. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences, Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
6. Bertotti, M., Jamal, F., and Harden, A., 2011. Connected communities: a review of conceptualisations and meanings of 'community' within and across research traditions: a metanarrative approach [online]. http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/FundingOpportunities/Documents/CC%20scoping%20studies/Bertotti.pdf(Accessed: 5 July 2012).
7. Britten, N. 2002. Using meta ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example. Journal of health services research and policy, 7(4): 209-215.
8. Bryman, A. 2001. Social research methods, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Campbell, R. 2002. Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Social science and medicine, 56: 671-684.
10. Candy, B., et al., 2011. Using qualitative synthesis to explore heterogeneity of complex interventions. BMC medical research methodology, 11 (124). doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-124. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/124 (Accessed: 25 June 2012).
11. Carr, S. 2011. An evidence synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research on component intervention techniques, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, equity and acceptability of different versions of health-related lifestyle advisor role in improving health. Health technology assessment, 15(09)
12. Carroll, C., Booth, A. and Cooper, K. 2011. A worked example of 'best fit' framework synthesis: a systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents. BMC medical research methodology, 11: 29 doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-29
13. Cresswell, J. 2003. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches, London: Sage.
14. Dixon-Woods, M. 2005. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of health service research and policy, 10(1): 45-53.
15. Evans, D. and FitzGerald, M. 2002. Reasons for physically restraining patients and residents: a systematic review and content analysis. International journal of nursing studies, 39(7): 735-743.
16. Garces, J.P.D., et al., 2012. Eliciting patient perspective in patient-centered outcomes research: a meta narrative systematic review [online]. http://www.pcori.org/assets/Eliciting-Patient-Perspective-in-Patient-Centered-Outcomes-Research-A-Meta-Narrative-Systematic-Review.pdf(Accessed: 5 July 2012).
17. Glenton, C., Lewin, S. and Scheel, I.B. 2011. Still too little qualitative research to shed light on results from reviews of effectiveness trials: a case study of a Cochrane review on the use of lay health workers. Implementation science, 6: 53
18. Gough, D. and Thomas, J. 2012. "Commonality and diversity in reviews". In An introduction to systematic reviews, Edited by: Gough, D., Oliver, S. and Thomas, J. 38-65. London: Sage.
19. Gough, D., Oliver, S. and Thomas, J. 2012. "Introducing systematic reviews". In An introduction to systematic reviews, 1-16. London: Sage.
20. Greenhalgh, T. 2011. Why do we always end up here? Evidence-based medicine's conceptual cul-de-sacs and some off-road alternative routes. Journal of primary health care, 4(2): 92-97.
21. Greenhalgh, T. 2005a. Diffusion of innovations in health service organisations: a systematic literature review, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
22. Greenhalgh, T. 2005b. Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Social science and medicine, 61: 417-430.
23. Greenhalgh, T., Kristiansson, E. and Robinson, V. 2007. Realist review to understand the efficacy of school feeding programmes. British medical journal, 335: 858-861.
24. Hagen-Zanker, J. this issue. Making systematic reviews work for international development research. Journal of development effectiveness,
25. Hannes, K., 2011. Critical appraisal of qualitative research. In: J. Noyes, et al., eds. Supplementary guidance for inclusion of qualitative research in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions 570 [online], Version 1. The Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group. http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance(Accessed: 9 November 2011).
26. Hannes, K. and Lockwood, C. 2012. Synthesizing qualitative research: choosing the right approach, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
27. Harden, A. and Gough, D. 2012. "Quality and relevance appraisal". In An introduction to systematic reviews, Edited by: Gough, D., Oliver, S. and Thomas, J. 153-178. London: Sage.
28. Harden, A. 2006. Young people, pregnancy and social exclusion: a systematic synthesis of research evidence to identify effective, appropriate and promising approaches for prevention and support, London: EPPI Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
29. Kiwanuka, S.N. 2011. Dual practice regulatory mechanisms in the health sector: a systematic review of approaches and implementation, London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
30. Koehlmoos, T. 2011. Social franchising evaluations: a scoping review, London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
31. Lavis, J. 2009. How can we support the use of systematic reviews in policymaking. PLoS medicine, 6(11): e1000141 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000141
32. Lewin, S. 2012. Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: assessing how much confidence to place in the research evidence. PLoS medicine, 9(3): e1001187 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001187
33. Mays, N., Pope, C. and Popay, J. 2005a. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. Journal of health service research and policy, 10(Suppl 1): 6-20.
34. Mays, N., Pope, C., and Popay, J., 2005b. Details of approaches to synthesis. A methodological appendix to the paper: systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy making in the health field [online]. http://www.google.co.uk/url?a=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CEoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.113.2530%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=6FkOUPWlEuHT0QWx4YCQDA&usg=AFQjCNHRxbH1y4UNKCMGS8GjdL5jcfZz3A(Accessed: 24 July 2012).
35. Munro, S.A. 2007. Patient adherence to tuberculosis treatment: a systematic review of qualitative research. PLoS medicine, 4(7): 1230-1245.
36. NICE. 2009. Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance, 2nd, London: NICE.
37. Noblit, G.W. and Hare, R.D. 1988. "Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitatives Studies". In Qualitative Research Methods, Vol. 11, Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
38. Noyes, J. and Lewin, S., 2011. Supplemental guidance on selecting a method of qualitative evidence synthesis, and integrating qualitative evidence with Cochrane intervention reviews. In: J. Noyes, et al., eds. Supplementary guidance for inclusion of qualitative research in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions [online], Version 1, The Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group. http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance(Accessed: 7 January 2012).
39. Noyes, J., et al., 2011. Qualitative research and Cochrane reviews. In: J.P.T. Higgins and S. Green, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions [online], Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org(Accessed: 29 November 2011).
40. Oliver, S. 2008. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analyzing public involvement in health services research. Health expectations, 11(1): 72-84.
41. Pawson, R. 2002. Evidence and policy and naming and shaming. Policy studies, 23(3/4): 211-230.
42. Pawson, R., 2006. Realist synthesis: supplementary reading 6: digging for nuggets: how 'bad' research can yield 'good' evidence [online]. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CEgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leeds.ac.uk%2Frealistsynthesis%2FSupread6.doc&ei=EIX0T-mwGOHK0QWPxoGVBw&usg=AFQjCNGPBe7nPxACjj9JTZK3YJl1xyGNjw(Accessed: 4 July 2012).
43. Pawson, R. 2005. Realist review-a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of health policy and research, 10(Suppl 1): 21-34.
44. Petticrew, M. and Roberts, H. 2003. Evidence, hierarchies, and typologies: horses for courses. Journal of epidemiology and community health, 57: 527-529.
45. Petticrew, M. and Roberts, H. 2006. Systematic reviews in the social sciences-a practical guide, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
46. Popay, J., et al., 2006. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews [online]. Version 1: April 2006, ESRC Methods Programme. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CF4QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.178.3100%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=3QMQUIqxK-GK0AXfgoGoBA&usg=AFQjCNGrW1dB7FBraR9t3ITS0FjiWqqg-A (Accessed: 25 July 2012).
47. Pope, C., Mays, N. and Popay, J. 2007. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative health evidence:a guide to methods, 79-89. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
48. Pope, C., Ziebland, S. and Mays, N. 2000. Qualitative research in health care: analysing qualitative data. British medical journal, 320: 114-116.
49. Pullin, A.S., et al., 2012. Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas? CEE protocol 11-009 [online]. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. www.environmentalevidence.org/SR11009.html (Accessed: 24 June 2012).
50. Ritchie, J. and Spencer, L. 1994. "Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research". In Analyzing qualitative data, Edited by: Bryman, A. and Burgess, R.G. London: Routledge.
51. Saini, M., 2012. Qualitative synthesis to help explore complex interventions: an evolving approach within systematic reviews, presented at the Campbell Colloquium, Copenhagen, 29-31 May 2012. http://www.sfi.dk/Default.aspx?ID=11043 (Accessed: 26 June 2012).
52. Saini, M. and Shlonsky, A. 2012. Systematic synthesis of qualitative research, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53. Snilstveit, B., Oliver, S. and Vojtkova, M. 2012. Narrative approaches to systematic review and synthesis of evidence for international development policy and practice. Journal of development effectiveness, 4(3): 409-429.
54. Spencer, L. 2003. Quality in qualitative evaluation: a framework for assessing research evidence, London: Government Chief Social Researcher's Office.
55. Thomas, J. 2003. Children and healthy eating: a systematic review of barriers and facilitators, London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
56. Thomas, J. 2007. Accidental injury, risk-taking behaviour and the social circumstances in which young people live, London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
57. Thomas, J. and Harden, A. 2008. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology, 8(45): 1-10.
58. Thomas, J., Harden, A. and Newman, M. 2012. "Synthesis: combining results systematically and appropriately". In An introduction to systematic reviews, Edited by: Gough, D., Oliver, S. and Thomas, J. 179-226. London: Sage.
59. Tugwell, P. 2010. Assessing equity in systematic reviews: realising the recommendations of the commission on social determinants of health. British medical journal, 341: 873-877.
60. van der Knapp, L.M. 2008. Combining Campbell standards and the realist evaluation approach-the best of two worlds?. American journal of evaluation, 29(1): 48-57.
61. van der Knapp, L.M., Nijssen, L.T.J.Bogaerts, S. 2006. Violence defied? a review of prevention of violence in the public and semi-public domain, The Hague: Research and Documentation Centre, Ministry of Justice.
62. Voils, C.I. 2008. Making sense of qualitative and quantitative findings in mixed research synthesis studies. Field methods, 20(1): 3-25.
63. Waddington, H. 2012. How to do a good systematic review of effects in international development: a tool kit. Journal of development effectiveness, 4(3): 359-387.
64. White, H. 2009. Theory-based impact evaluation: principles and practice. Journal of development effectiveness, 1(3): 271-284.
65. Williamson, L.M. 2009. Limits to modern contraceptive use among women in developing countries: a systematic review of qualitative research. Reproductive health, 6(3): 1-12.