Structured methodology review identified seven (RETREAT) criteria for selecting qualitative evidence synthesis approaches

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 99, Issue , 2018, Pages 41-52

  Booth, Andrew ^a   Noyes, Jane ^b   Flemming, Kate ^c   Gerhardus, Ansgar ^d   Wahlster, Philip ^d,e   van der Wilt, Gert Jan ^f   Mozygemba, Kati ^d   Refolo, Pietro ^g   Sacchini, Dario ^g   Tummers, Marcia ^f   Rehfuess, Eva ^h  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

^e SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^f RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^g CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^h UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Qualitative evidence synthesis; Qualitative research; Review methods; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

APPLIED RESEARCH; CITATION ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA BASE; DATA EXTRACTION; EPISTEMOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PROCEDURES;

DATA COLLECTION; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85044940994     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.03.003     Document Type: Review

References (67)

1. Booth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Gerhardus, A., Wahlster, P., van der Wilt, G.J., et al. Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. 2016, INTEGRATE-HTA.
2. Booth, A., Qualitative evidence synthesis. Facey, K., Ploug Hansen, H., Single, A., (eds.) Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment, 2017, Adis, Singapore, 187–199.
3. Anderson, L.M., Petticrew, M., Chandler, J., Grimshaw, J., Tugwell, P., O'Neill, J., et al. Introducing a series of methodological articles on considering complexity in systematic reviews of interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 1205–1208.
4. Squires, J.E., Valentine, J.C., Grimshaw, J.M., Systematic reviews of complex interventions: framing the review question. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 1215–1222.
5. Petticrew, M., Anderson, L., Elder, R., Grimshaw, J., Hopkins, D., Hahn, R., et al. Complex interventions and their implications for systematic reviews: a pragmatic approach. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 1209–1214.
6. Petticrew, M., Rehfuess, E., Noyes, J., Higgins, J.P., Mayhew, A., Pantoja, T., et al. Synthesizing evidence on complex interventions: how meta-analytical, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches can contribute. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 1230–1243.
7. Gülmezoglu, A.M., Chandler, J., Shepperd, S., Pantoja, T., Reviews of qualitative evidence: a new milestone for Cochrane. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2013, ED000073.
8. Lucas, P.J., Baird, J., Arai, L., Law, C., Roberts, H.M., Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 7, 2007, 4.
9. Hannes, K., Lockwood, C., Synthesizing qualitative research: Choosing the right approach. 2011, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
10. Ring, N.R.K., Mandava, L., Jepson, R., A guide to synthesising qualitative research for researchers undertaking health technology assessments and systematic reviews. 2010, Quality Improvement Scotland (NHS QIS), Glasgow.
11. Barnett-Page, E., Thomas, J., Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 9, 2009, 59.
12. Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., Sutton, A., Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy 10 (2005), 45–53.
13. Noyes, J., Lewin, S., Chapter 5: extracting qualitative evidence. Noyes, J., Booth, A., Hannes, K., Harden, A., Harris, J., Lewin, S., (eds.) Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2011 Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group.
14. Gough, D., Oliver, S., Thomas, J., An introduction to systematic reviews. 2012, Sage Publications Ltd, London.
15. Pearson, A., Robertson Malt, S., Rittenmeyer, L., Synthesising qualitative evidence. 2011, Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia.
16. Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Young, B., Jones, D., Sutton, A., Integrative approaches to qualitative and quantitative evidence. 2004, Health Development Agency, London.
17. Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol, 6, 2006, 35.
18. Greenhalgh, T., Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. 2005, Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, University College London, London, UK, 417–430.
19. Mays, N., Pope, C., Popay, J., Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Policy 10 (2005), 6–20.
20. Booth, A., Carroll, C., How to build up the actionable knowledge base: the role of ‘best fit’ framework synthesis for studies of improvement in healthcare. BMJ Qual Saf 24 (2015), 700–708.
21. Paterson, B.L., Canam, C., Thorne, S.E., Jillings, C., Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research: A practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. 2001, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
22. Sandelowski, M., Barroso, J., Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. 2007, Springer, New York.
23. Manning, N., Conclusion. Hannes, K., Lockwood, C., (eds.), 2011, Wiley-Blackwell BMJ Books, Chichester, 161–172.
24. Paterson, B.L., “It looks great but how do I know if it fits?”: an introduction to meta-synthesis research. Hannes, K., Lockwood, C., (eds.) Synthesizing qualitative research: choosing the right approach, 2011, Wiley-Blackwell BMJ Books, Chichester, 1–20.
25. Booth, A., Qualitative evidence synthesis for HTA. Workshop at 9th Annual Meeting HTAi Bilbao 2012 (June 23rd-24th). HTA in Integrated Care for a Patient Centered System. 2012 Available at http://www.htai2012.org/home.htm. (Accessed 12 December 2015)
26. Gough, D., Thomas, J., Oliver, S., Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev, 1, 2012, 28.
27. Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S., Craig, J., Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol, 12, 2012, 181.
28. Toye, F., Seers, K., Allcock, N., Briggs, M., Carr, E., Barker, K., Meta-ethnography 25 years on: challenges and insights for synthesising a large number of qualitative studies. BMC Med Res Methodol, 14, 2014, 80.
29. Eakin, J.M., Mykhalovskiy, E., Reframing the evaluation of qualitative health research: reflections on a review of appraisal guidelines in the health sciences. J Eval Clin Pract 9 (2003), 187–194.
30. Lorenc, T., Pearson, M., Jamal, F., Cooper, C., Garside, R., The role of systematic reviews of qualitative evidence in evaluating interventions: a case study. Res Synth Methods 3 (2012), 1–10.
31. Richardson, W.S., Wilson, M.C., Nishikawa, J., Hayward, R.S., The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 123 (1995), A12–A13.
32. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual, 2014, The Joanna Briggs Institute, Adelaide, Australia.
33. Booth, A., Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice. Libr Hi Tech 24:3 (2006), 355–368.
34. Cooke, A., Smith, D., Booth, A., P.I.C.O. Beyond. The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res 22 (2012), 1435–1443.
35. Petticrew, M., Roberts, H., Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A practical guide. 2006, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
36. Harris, J.L., Booth, A., Cargo, M., Hannes, K., Harden, A., Flemming, K., et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Guidance series - paper 6: methods for question formulation, searching and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol, 2018, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.023.
37. Hannes, K., Lockwood, C., Pragmatism as the philosophical foundation for the Joanna Briggs meta-aggregative approach to qualitative evidence synthesis. J Adv Nurs 67 (2011), 1632–1642.
38. Noyes, J., Hendry, M., Booth, A., Chandler, J., Lewin, S., Glenton, C., et al. Current use was established and Cochrane guidance on selection of social theories for systematic reviews of complex interventions was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 75 (2016), 78–92.
39. Booth, A., Harris, J., Croot, E., Springett, J., Campbell, F., Wilkins, E., Towards a methodology for cluster searching to provide conceptual and contextual “richness” for systematic reviews of complex interventions: case study (CLUSTER). BMC Med Res Methodol, 13, 2013, 118.
40. Seers, K., Qualitative systematic reviews: their importance for our understanding of research relevant to pain. Br J Pain 9:1 (2014), 36–40.
41. Lockwood, C., Munn, Z., Porritt, K., Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Int J Evid Based Healthc 13:3 (2015), 179–187.
42. Carroll, C., Booth, A., Cooper, K., A worked example of “best fit” framework synthesis: a systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents. BMC Med Res Methodol, 11, 2011, 29.
43. Carroll, C., Booth, A., Leaviss, J., Rick, J., “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method. BMC Med Res Methodol, 13, 2013, 37.
44. Thomas, J., Harden, A., Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 8, 2008, 45.
45. Doyle, L.H., Synthesis through meta-ethnography: paradoxes, enhancements, and possibilities. Qual Res 3:3 (2003), 321–344.
46. Houghton, C., Murphy, K., Meehan, B., Thomas, J., Brooker, D., Casey, D., From screening to synthesis: using NVivo to enhance transparency in qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Nurs 26 (2017), 873–881.
47. Brereton, L., Clark, J., Ingleton, C., Gardiner, C., Preston, L., Ryan, T., et al. What do we know about different models of providing palliative care? Findings from a systematic review of reviews. Palliat Med 31 (2017), 781–797.
48. Booth, A., Carroll, C., Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable?. Health Info Libr J 32 (2015), 220–235.
49. Pound, P., Campbell, R., Locating and applying sociological theories of risk-taking to develop public health interventions for adolescents. Health Sociol Rev 24 (2015), 64–80.
50. Campbell, R., Pound, P., Morgan, M., Daker-White, G., Britten, N., Pill, R., et al. Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technol Assess 15 (2011), 1–164.
51. Tufanaru, C., Theoretical foundations of meta-aggregation: insights from Husserlian phenomenology and American pragmatism (Doctoral dissertation). 2016.
52. Kastner, M., Antony, J., Soobiah, C., Straus, S.E., Tricco, A.C., Conceptual recommendations for selecting the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions related to complex evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 73 (2016), 43–49.
53. France, E.F., Ring, N., Noyes, J., Maxwell, M., Jepson, R., Duncan, E., et al. Protocol-developing meta-ethnography reporting guidelines (eMERGe). BMC Med Res Methodol, 15, 2015, 103.
54. Flemming, K., Booth, A., Hannes, K., Cargo, M., Noyes, J., Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance paper 5: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation and process evaluation evidence syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol, 2017, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.022.
55. Popay, J., Roberts, H.M., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. 2006, Institute of Health Research: ESRC Methods Programme, Lancaster.
56. Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., Walshe, K., Realist review-a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Pol 10 (2005), 21–34.
57. Candy, B., King, M., Jones, L., Oliver, S., Using qualitative synthesis to explore heterogeneity of complex interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol, 11, 2011, 124.
58. Wilson, K., Amir, E., Cancer and disability benefits: a synthesis of qualitative findings on advice and support. Psychooncology 17 (2008), 421–429.
59. Noblit, G., Hare, R.D., Meta-ethnography: Synthesising Qualitative Studies. 1988, Sage Publications, London.
60. Russell, C.K., Bunting, S.M., Gregory, D.M., Protective care-receiving: the active role of care-recipients. J Adv Nurs 25 (1997), 532–540.
61. Noyes, J., Booth, A., Flemming, K., Garside, R., Harden, A., Lewin, S., et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Guidance paper 2: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings. J Clin Epidemiol, 2018, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.020.
62. Monforte-Royo, C., Villavicencio-Chávez, C., Tomás-Sábado, J., et al. What lies behind the wish to hasten death? A systematic review and meta-ethnography from the perspective of patients. PLoS One, 7, 2012, e37117.
63. Fegran, L., Ludvigsen, M.S., Haraldstad, K., Adolescents and young adults’ experiences of living with everyday pain: a systematic review protocol of qualitative evidence. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 12:8 (2014), 116–126.
64. Cook, C.N., Nichols, S.J., Webb, J.A., Fuller, R.A., Richards, R.M., Simplifying the selection of evidence synthesis methods to inform environmental decisions: a guide for decision makers and scientists. Biol Conservation 213 (2017), 135–145.
65. Haddaway, N., Dicks, L.V., Over-simplifying evidence synthesis? A response to Cook et al. Biol Conservation 218 (2017), 289–290.
66. Cook, C.N., Nichols, S.J., Webb, J.A., Fuller, R.A., Richards, R.M., Cutting through the complexity to aid evidence synthesis. A response to Haddaway and Dicks. Biol Conservation 218 (2017), 291–292.
67. Harden, A., Thomas, J., Cargo, M., Harris, J., Pantoja, T., Flemming, K., et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance paper 4: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2018, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.029.