Advancing the science of literature reviewing in social research: the focused mapping review and synthesis

International Journal of Social Research Methodology

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2019, Pages 451-462

  Bradbury Jones, Caroline ^a   Breckenridge, Jenna P ^b   Clark, Maria T ^a   Herber, Oliver R ^c   Jones, Christine ^d   Taylor, Julie ^a,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^c HEINRICH HEINE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE   (United Kingdom)

^e BIRMINGHAM CHILDREN S HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evidence; focused mapping review; knowledge synthesis; literature review; methodology; scientific inquiry; social research; synthesis

Indexed keywords

EID: 85065858469     PISSN: 13645579     EISSN: 14645300     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13645579.2019.1576328     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L., (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
2. Aveyard, H., (2014). Doing a literature review in health and social care: A practical guide. Berkshire: Open University Press.
3. Barbour, V., Burch, D., Godlee, F., Heneghan, C., Lehman, R., Perera, R., … Schroter, S., (2016). Characterisation of trials where marketing purposes have been influential in study design: A descriptive study. Trials, 17, 31.
4. Bastian, H., Glasziou, P., & Chalmers, I., (2010). Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up? PLoS Medicine, 7, e1000326.
5. Booth, A., Carroll, C., Ilott, I., Low, L. L., & Cooper, K., (2013, January). Desperately seeking dissonance: Identifying the disconfirming case in qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 23(1), 126–141.
6. Booth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Gerhardus, A., Wahlster, P., van der Wilt, G. J., … Rehfuess, E., (2016). Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. Integrate-HTA. Retrieved from http://www.integrate-hta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Guidance-on-choosing-qualitative-evidence-synthesis-methods-for-use-in-HTA-of-complex-interventions.pdf
7. Carlsen, B., & Glenton, C., (2011). What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 26.
8. Chalmers, I., Hedges, L. V., & Cooper, H., (2002). A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 25(1), 12–37.
9. Cooper, C., Booth, A., Varley-Campbell, J., Britten, N., & Garside, R., (2018). Defining the process of literature searching in systematic review: A literature review of guidance and supporting studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18, 85.
10. Cooper, I. D., (2016, Jan). What is a “mapping study?”. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104(1), 76–78.
11. Davidson, E., Edwards, R., Jamieson, L., & Weller, S., (2018). Big data, qualitative style: A breadth-and-depth method for working with large amounts of secondary qualitative data. Quality & Quantity. doi:10.1007/s11135-018-0757-y
12. Duncan, A., (1773). Introduction. In Medical and philosophical Commentaries (Vol. 1, Part I). London: J Murray. Retrieved from http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/a-society-in-edinburgh-1773/
13. Fawcett, J., (2013). Thoughts about conceptual models, theories, and literature reviews. Nursing Science Quarterly, 26(3), 285–288.
14. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A., (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26, 91–108.
15. James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R., (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 5(1), 7.
16. Jones, C., Taylor, J., MacKay, K., Soliman, F., Clayton, E., Gadda, A., & Anderson, A., (2016). The landscape of UK child protection research 2010 to 2014: A mapping review of substantive topics, maltreatment types and research designs. Child Abuse Review, 26(1), 8–18.
17. Kastner, M., Tricco, A., Soobiah, C., Lillie, E., Perrier, L., Horsley, T., … Straus, S. E., (2012). What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, 114.
18. Lau, S, & Traulsen, J., (2017). Are we ready to accept the challenge? addressing the shortcomings of contemporary qualitative health research. Research in Social And Administrative Pharmacy, 13(2), 332–338. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2016.02.014
19. Lind, J., (1753). A treatise of the scurvy. In three parts. Containing an inquiry into the nature, causes and cure, of that disease. Together with a critical and chronological view of what has been published on the subject. Edinburgh: Sands, Murray and Cochran for A. Kincaid and A. Donaldson.
20. Major, C. H., & Savin-Baden, M., (2012). An introduction to qualitative research synthesis: Managing the information explosion in social science research. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
21. Naylor, C. D., (2001). Clinical decisions: From art to science and back again. Lancet, 358(9281), 523–524.
22. Noblit, G. W., (2018). Meta-ethnography: Adaption and return. Chapter 2. In L., Urrieta Jr & G. W., Noblit (Eds.), Cultural constructions of identity: Meta-ethnography and theory. Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190676087.001.0001/oso-9780190676087-chapter-2?print=pdf
23. Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D., (1988). Meta-ethnography, synthesising qualitative studies, qualitative research methods (Vol. 11). London: SAGE Publications.
24. Paterson, B., Thorne, S., Canam, C., & Jillings, C., (2001). Meta-study of qualitative health research. London: Sage.
25. Perryman, C. L., (2016). Mapping studies. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104(1), 79–82.
26. Polit, D., (2017). Clinical significance in nursing research: A discussion and descriptive analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 73, 17–23.
27. Richards, D. A., Coulthard, V., & Borglin, G., (2014). The state of European nursing research: Dead, alive, or chronically diseased? A systematic literature review. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 11(3), 147–155.
28. Sackett, D., Straus, S., Richardson, W., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R., (2000). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM (Vol. 2). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
29. Soares, C. B., & Yonekura, T., (2011). Systematic review of theories: A tool to evaluate and analyze selected studies. Revista Da Escola De Enfermagem Da USP, 45(6), 1507–1514.
30. Taylor, J., Bradbury-Jones, C., Breckenridge, J., Jones, C., & Herber, O. R., (2016). Risk of vicarious trauma in nursing research: A focused mapping review and synthesis. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 25(19–20), 2768–2777.
31. Thomas, J., & Harden, A., (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45.
32. Tuturel, O., (2004). Composition of the editorial boards of leading medical education journals. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 4, 3.
33. Walsh, D., & Downe, S., (2005). Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(2), 204–211.
34. Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K., (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52, 546–553.
35. Younglove-Webb, J., Gray, B., Abdalla, C. W., & Ap, T., (1999). The dynamics of multidisciplinary research teams in academia. Review of Higher Education, 22(4), 425–440.