Provide a brief synopsis

30-1

Supplementary Resources for Qualitative EvidenceSupplement B

to Chapter 30 Syntheses

T he field of qualitative evidence synthesis is very bumpy terrain. Literally dozens of terms for qualitative synthesis methods have emerged, referring to a disconcerting array of approaches. It is beyond the scope of this general textbook to describe each approach—indeed, there is no con- sensus on definitions, nor on which approaches are likely to remain in the synthesis repertoire in the years ahead. As noted in the textbook, there is not even consensus on what to call the entire enterprise. The most frequently used “umbrella” terms are qualitative metasynthesis, qualitative systematic review, qualitative evidence synthe- sis, and qualitative research synthesis (Booth et al., 2016); other terms include qualitative meta- analysis and qualitative data aggregation (Thorne, 2017). The leading organizations involved with systematic reviews, the Cochrane Collaboration and the Joanna Briggs Institute, typically use the umbrella term qualitative evidence synthesis. In nursing, the term metasynthesis has predom- inated. Nurse researchers have contributed more to the field of qualitative research synthesis than scholars in other health-related disciplines (Tricco et al., 2016).

Several groups of researchers have made efforts to compare different qualitative review approaches, often using systematic review meth- ods themselves. For example, a large group of

scholars from Canada (Kastner et al., 2016; Tricco et al., 2016) undertook a scoping review in which 409 articles describing 25 qualitative synthe- sis methods (some were mixed studies reviews) were analyzed. In the United Kingdom, another group mapped the qualitative synthesis terrain and made explicit comparisons among the approaches along several dimensions (Booth et al., 2016). We identified several other similar comparative efforts (Barnett-Page & Thomas, 2009; Hannes & Lockwood, 2011; Saini & Schlonsky, 2012; Schick-Makaroff et al., 2016), and others are likely to emerge as the field struggles to attain greater clarity and consensus.

We have created a table that indicates which resources provide comparative information about approaches to qualitative synthesis along several dimensions of variation. Table 1 shows review citations for 14 qualitative synthesis approaches. Our table does not include all approaches that were compared in the review articles. For example, one approach to qualitative synthesis, referred to as content analysis, was included in comparative tables in Hannes and Lockwood’s (2011) article but not in any of the others. We did not include this approach in Table 1.

A quick glance at Table 1 shows that certain approaches have received a lot of attention in these comparative reviews—especially grounded formal

T A

B L

E 1

�

Q u

a li

ta ti

v e

S y

n th

e se

s S

u m

m a

ry In

fo rm

a ti

o n

: R e

se a

rc h

e rs

W h

o H

a v

e S

u m

m a

ri ze

d F

e a

tu re

s o

f D

if fe

re n

t A

p p

ro a

ch e

s to

Q

u a

li ta

ti v

e E

v id

e n

ce S

y n

th e

se s

in C

o m

p a

ra ti

v e

T a

b le

sa

N A

M E

O F

A P

P R

O A

C H

F E

A T

U R

E S

O F

T H

E A

P P

R O

A C

H B

E IN

G C

O M

P A

R E

D

D E

F IN

IT IO

N

P U

R P

O S

E /

O B

JE C

T IV

E

F IX

E D

V E

R S

U S

E M

E R

G E

N T

Q U

E S

T IO

N

S E

A R

C H

S T

R A

T E

G Y

D

E S

IG N

— P

R IM

A R

Y S

T U

D IE

S b

C R

IT IC

A L

A P

P R

A IS

A L

IT

E R

A T

IO N

c S

Y N

T H

E S

IS M

E T

H O

D

O U

T C

O M

E /

O U

T P

U T

C

O N

N E

C T

IO N

T O

T H

E O

R Y

d

A P

P L

IC A

T IO

N S

E

P IS

T E

M O

L O

G Y

C on

ce pt

a na

ly si

s/ sy

nt he

si s

S ch

ic k

T ri

cc o

K as

tn er

S ch

ic k

T ri

cc o

B oo

th

B oo

th

B oo

th

S ch

ic k

B ar

ne tt

S

ch ic

k B

oo th

K as

tn er

S ch

ic k

B oo

th

K as

tn er

B

oo th

C ri

ti ca

l in

te rp

re ti

ve

sy nt

he si

s

S ch

ic k

T ri

cc o

H an

ne s

K as

tn er

S ch

ic k

T ri

cc o

B oo

th

B oo

th

H an

ne s

B ar

ne tt

B

ar ne

tt

B oo

th

H an

ne s

S ch

ic k

B ar

ne tt

H

an ne

s

S ch

ic k

B oo

th

H an

ne s

K as

tn er

S ch

ic k

B oo

th

K as

tn er

B

ar ne

tt

B oo

th

E co

lo gi

ca l

tr ia

ng ul

at io

n B

oo th

B

oo th

B

ar ne

tt

B oo

th

B ar

ne tt

B

oo th

B

oo th

B

ar ne

tt

B oo

th

F ra

m ew

or k

sy nt

he si

s B

oo th

B

oo th

B

ar ne

tt

B ar

ne tt

B oo

th

B oo

th

B oo

th

B ar

ne tt

B oo

th

G ro

un de

d fo

rm al

th eo

ry

S ch

ic k

H an

ne s

S ai

ni

S ch

ic k

B oo

th

S ai

ni

B oo

th

H an

ne s

B ar

ne tt

S ai

ni

B ar

ne tt

B oo

th

H an

ne s

S ch

ic k

B ar

ne tt

H

an ne

s

S ai

ni

S ch

ic k

B oo

th

H an

ne s

S ai

ni

S ch

ic k

B oo

th

B ar

ne tt

B oo

th

S ai

ni

M et

a- ag

gr eg

at io

n H

an ne

s B

oo th

B

oo th

H an

ne s

B oo

th

H an

ne s

H an

ne s

B oo

th

H an

ne s

B oo

th

B oo

th

M et

a- et

hn og

ra ph

y S

ch ic

k

T ri

cc o

H an

ne s

K as

tn er

S ai

ni

S ch

ic k

T ri

cc o

B oo

th

S ai

ni

B oo

th

H an

ne s

B ar

ne tt

S ai

ni

B ar

ne tt

B oo

th

H an

ne s

S ch

ic k

B ar

ne tt

H

an ne

s

S ai

ni

S ch

ic k

B oo

th

H an

ne s

K as

tn er

S ai

ni

S ch

ic k

B oo

th

K as

tn er

B

ar ne

tt

B oo

th

S ai

ni

M et

a- in

te rp

re ta

ti on

T

ri cc

o K

as tn

er

S ai

ni

T ri

cc o

B oo

th

S ai

ni

B oo

th

S ai

ni

B oo

th

B ar

ne tt

S

ai ni

B

oo th

K as

tn er

S ai

ni

B oo

th

K as

tn er

B

oo th

S ai

ni

M et

an ar

ra ti

ve

re vi

ew

S ch

ic k

T ri

cc o

K as

tn er

S ch

ic k

T ri

cc o

B oo

th

B oo

th

B ar

ne tt

B

ar ne

tt

B oo

th

S ch

ic k

S ch

ic k

B oo

th

K as

tn er

S ch

ic k

B oo

th

K as

tn er

B

ar ne

tt

B oo

th

M et

as tu

dy

S ch

ic k

T ri

cc o

H an

ne s

K as

tn er

S ai

ni

S ch

ic k

T ri

cc o

B oo

th

S ai

ni

B oo

th

H an

ne s

B ar

ne tt

S ai

ni

B ar

ne tt

B oo

th

H an

ne s

S ch

ic k

H an

ne s

S ai

ni

S ch

ic k

B oo

th

H an

ne s

K as

tn er

S ai

ni

S ch

ic k

B oo

th

K as

tn er

B

ar ne

tt

B oo

th

S ai

ni

M et

as um

m ar

y T

ri cc

o K

as tn

er

S ai

ni

T ri

cc o

B oo

th

S ai

ni

B oo

th

S ai

ni

B oo

th

B ar

ne tt

S

ai ni

B

oo th

K as

tn er

S ai

ni

B oo

th

K as

tn er

B

oo th

S ai

ni

M et

as yn

th es

is e

T ri

cc o

K as

tn er

S ai

ni

T ri

cc o

B oo

th

S ai

ni

B oo

th

S ai

ni

B oo

th

S ai

ni

B oo

th

K as

tn er

S ai

ni

B oo

th

K as

tn er

B

oo th

S ai

ni

N ar

ra ti

ve

sy nt

he si

s T

ri cc

o K

as tn

er

T ri

cc o

B oo

th

B oo

th

B ar

ne tt

B

ar ne

tt

B oo

th

B ar

ne tt

B

oo th

K as

tn er

B oo

th

K as

tn er

B

ar ne

tt

B oo

th

T he

m at

ic sy

nt he

si s

H an

ne s

B oo

th

B oo

th

H an

ne s

B ar

ne tt

B

ar ne

tt

B oo

th

H an

ne s

B ar

ne tt

H

an ne

s B

oo th

H an

ne s

B oo

th

B ar

ne tt

B oo

th

a R ef

er en

ce s

in t

he t

ab le

c el

ls :

B ar

ne tt

-P ag

e, E

., &

T ho

m as

, J . (

20 09

). M

et ho

ds f

or t

he s

yn th

es is

o f

qu al

it at

iv e

re se

ar ch

: A c

ri ti

ca l

re vi

ew . B

M C

M ed

ic a l

R es

ea rc

h M

et h o d o lo

g y,

9 , 5

9, A

pp en

di x

ta bl

es . h

tt ps

:/ /b

m cm

ed re

sm et

ho do

l. bi

om ed

ce nt

ra l.

co m

/t ra

ck /

pd f/

10 .1

18 6/

14 71

-2 28

8- 9-

59 .

B oo

th , A

., N

oy es

, J .,

F le

m m

in g,

K .,

G er

ha rd

us , A

., W

ah ls

te r,

P .,

V an

d er

W il

t, G

., …

R eh

fu ss

, E . (

20 16

). G

u id

a n ce

o n c

h o o si

n g q

u a li

ta ti

ve e

vi d en

ce s

yn th

es is

m et

h o d s

fo r

u se

i n h

ea lt

h t

ec h n o lo

g y

a ss

es sm

en ts

o f

co m

p le

x in

te rv

en ti

o n s.

A va

il ab

le

fr om

h tt

p: //

w w

w .i

nt eg

ra te

-h ta

.e u/

do w

nl oa

ds /,

T ab

le s

5 an

d 7.

H an

ne s,

K .,

& L

oc kw

oo d,

C . (

20 11

). P

ra gm

at is

m a

s th

e ph

il os

op hi

ca l

fo un

da ti

on f

or t

he J

oa nn

a B

ri gg

s m

et a-

ag gr

eg at

iv e

ap pr

oa ch

t o

qu al

it at

iv e

ev id

en ce

s yn

th es

is . J

o u rn

a l

o f

A d va

n ce

d N

u rs

in g , 6

7, 1

63 2–

16 42

, T ab

le 2

.

K as

tn er

, M .,

A nt

on y,

J .,

S oo

bi ah

, C .,

S tr

au s,

S .,

& T

ri cc

o, A

. ( 20

16 ).

C on

ce pt

ua l

re co

m m

en da

ti on

s fo

r se

le ct

in g

th e

m os

t ap

pr op

ri at

e kn

ow le

dg e

sy nt

he si

s m

et ho

d to

a ns

w er

r es

ea rc

h qu

es ti

on s

re la

te d

to c

om pl

ex e

vi de

nc e.

J o u rn

a l

o f

C li

n ic

a l

E p id

em io

lo g y,

7 3,

4 3–

49 , F

ig ur

e 1.

S ai

ni , M

., &

S hl

on sk

y, A

. ( 20

12 ).

S ys

te m

a ti

c sy

n th

es is

o f

q u a li

ta ti

ve r

es ea

rc h . O

xf or

d, I

K :

O xf

or d

U ni

ve rs

it y

P re

ss , T

ab le

2 .1

.

S ch

ic k-

M ak

ar of

f, K

., M

ac D

on al

d, M

., P

lu m

m er

, M .,

B ur

ge ss

, J .,

& N

ea nd

er , W

. ( 20

16 ).

W ha

t sy

nt he

si s

m et

ho do

lo gy

s ho

ul d

I us

e? A

r ev

ie w

a nd

a na

ly si

s of

a pp

ro ac

he s

to r

es ea

rc h

sy nt

he si

s. A

IM S P

u b li

c H

ea lt

h , 3

, 1 72

–2 15

. A dd

it io

na l

fi le

. A

va il

ab le

f ro

m h

tt ps

:/ /w

w w

.n cb

i. nl

m .n

ih .g

ov /p

m c/

ar ti

cl es

/P M

C 56

90 27

2/ pd

f/ pu

bl ic

he al

th -0

3- 01

-1 72

.p df

.

T ri

cc o,

A .,

S oo

bi ah

, C .,

A nt

on y,

J .,

C og

o, E

., M

ac D

on al

d, H

., L

il li

e, E

., …

K as

tn er

, M . (

20 16

). A

s co

pi ng

r ev

ie w

i de

nt if

ie s

m ul

ti pl

e em

er gi

ng k

no w

le dg

e sy

nt he

si s

m et

ho ds

, b ut

f ew

s tu

di es

o pe

ra ti

on al

iz e

th e

m et

ho d.

J o u rn

a l

o f

C li

n ic

a l

E p id

em io

lo g y,

7 3,

1 9–

28 , T

ab le

s 2

& 3

. b R

ef er

s to

w he

th er

p ri

m ar

y st

ud ie

s in

r ev

ie w

m us

t be

o f

sa m

e ty

pe —

th e

he te

ro ge

ne it

y/ ho

m og

en ei

ty d

is ti

nc ti

on i

n B

ar ne

tt -J

on es

e t

al .,

20 09

. c R

ef er

s to

t he

e xt

en t

of i

te ra

ti on

d ur

in g

th e

re vi

ew p

ro ce

ss , a

d im

en si

on d

is cu

ss ed

i n

B ar

ne tt

-J on

es e

t al

., 20

09 .

d C at

eg or

ie s

in cl

ud e

G en

er at

in g

th eo

ry , E

xp lo

ri ng

t he

or y,

a nd

T es

ti ng

t he

or y;

r at

in gs

a re

N ot

r eq

ui re

d, E

ss en

ti al

, o r

U nc

er ta

in .

e S om

e (e

.g .,

B oo

th e

t al

.) c

on si

de r

m et

as yn

th es

is a

s an

u m

br el

la t

er m

. B oo

th i

nc lu

de d

an a

pp ro

ac h

ca ll

ed “

Q ua

li ta

ti ve

i nt

er pr

et iv

e m

et as

yn th

es is

,” w

hi ch

i s

th e

m et

ho d

re fe

rr ed

t o

w he

n B

oo th

i s

ci te

d fo

r m

et as

yn th

es is

.

30-4 � PART 6 Building an Evidence Base for Nursing Practice

theory, critical interpretive synthesis, metastudy, and meta-ethnography. The approach adopted by the Joanna Briggs Institute—meta-aggregation— was classified in the category called metasummary in the large Canadian scoping review (e.g., Kastner et al., 2016; Tricco et al.), but other reviewers dis- tinguished the two.

In Table 1, we included comparisons among the approaches for 12 dimensions. Other dimen- sions that were compared in the various reviews are not shown in Table 1, to keep the table more manageable. For example, Tricco et al. (2016) com- pared the synthesis approaches with respect to dis- ciplinary roots and Booth et al. (2016) compared approaches with respect to resource requirements and time demands.

A few caveats are in order. First, for any given cell in the table, we make no claim that the infor- mation provided is comparable across the refer- ences. For instance, review teams differed in how they described the purpose of a particular approach. Here is one example, in which four review teams described the purpose of a metastudy:

l “The analysis of research findings, methods, and theory across qualitative studies are compared and contrasted to create a new interpretation” (Schick-Makaroff et al., 2016, p. 202, p. 202).

l “To seek and reveal similarities and differ- ences and build new interpretations” (Hannes & Lockwood, 2011, p. 1635, p. 1635).

l “To develop new knowledge, theoretical inter- pretations, and understanding through criti- cally analyzing and synthesizing qualitative studies within sociocultural contexts” (Saini & Schlonsky, 2012, p. 46).

l To “explore understanding; explore perceptions; explore a phenomenon; review and evaluate; explore synthesis methods” (Tricco et al., 2016, p. 26).

Another issue is that some of the dimensions involve categorical comparisons—and the cate- gories are not the same from one review group to the next. For example, Barnett-Page and Thomas (2009) used five categories for comparisons in the epistemology dimension: Subjective idealism, objective idealism, critical realism, scientific real- ism, and naïve realism. In Booth et al.’s (2016) review, by contrast, epistemological distinctions were included in several separate categories, such as idealist versus realist and degree of depen- dence on epistemology (high, moderate, low). Metastudies were classified as Subjective idealism by Barnett-Page and Thomas, and as Idealist and Moderate dependence on epistemology by Booth and colleagues.

Finally, we do not attest to the accuracy of the information in the comparative tables in the reviews. For example, Booth and colleagues (2016) claim in the comparisons that grounded formal theory and meta-ethnography involve gen- erating theory, exploring theory, and testing the- ory—but that metastudy does “not require” any of these. We make no comment on these judgments. Original sources for the various approaches should always be checked before drawing firm conclu- sions. The comparative tables should be a starting point for learning about the features of the various approaches.

Table 2 provides at least one reference for each approach included in Table 1. The second col- umn lists a reference from the Booth et al. (2016) review that those researchers designated as a “core methodological text” (p. 32) for most approaches mentioned in the first column. The third column provides an additional reference or, for approaches not included in the Booth et al. review, a single reference. Whenever possible, a link to retrieve the reference is also included.

T A

B L

E 2

�

M a

jo r

R e

fe re

n ce

(s )

fo r

E a

ch Q

u a

li ta

ti v

e E

v id

e n

ce S

y n

th e

si s

A p

p ro

a ch

in T

a b

le 1

ph il

os op

hi ca

l fo

un da

ti on

f or

t he

J oa

nn a

B ri

gg s

m et

a- ag

gr eg

at iv

e ap

pr oa

ch t

o qu

al it

at iv

e ev

id en

ce s

yn th

es is

. Jo

u rn

a l

o f

A d va

n ce

d N

u rs

in g,

6 7 , 1

63 2–

16 42

.

C ar

ro ll

, C .,

B oo

th , A

., L

ea vi

ss , J

., &

R ic

k, J

. ( 20

13 ).

“ B

es t

fi t”

f ra

m ew

or k

sy nt

he si

s: R

ef in

in g

th e

m et

ho d.

B M

C

M ed

ic a l

R es

ea rc

h M

et h o d o lo

g y,

1 3 , 3

7. h

tt ps

:/ /w

w w

. nc

bi .n

lm .n

ih .g

ov /p

m c/

ar ti

cl es

/P M

C 36

18 12

6/ pd

f/ 14

71 -

22 88

-1 3-

37 .p

df .

K ea

rn ey

, M . (

20 01

). N

ew d

ir ec

ti on

s in

g ro

un de

d fo

rm al

th

eo ry

. N ew

d ir

ec ti

on s

in g

ro un

de d

fo rm

al t

he or

y. I

n S

ch re

ib er

& P

. S te

rn (

E ds

.) .

R .

U si

n g g

ro u n d ed

t h eo

ry

in n

u rs

in g (

pp . 2

37 –2

46 ).

N ew

Y or

k: S

pr in

ge r.

L oc

kw oo

d, C

., P

or ri

t, K

., M

un n,

Z .,

R it

te nm

ey er

, L .,

S al

m on

d, S

., L

ov ed

ay , H

., C

ar ri

er , D

. S ys

te m

at ic

re

vi ew

s of

q ua

li ta

ti ve

e vi

de nc

e. I

n A

ro m

at ar

is , W

. &

M un

n, Z

. ( E

ds .)

. J o a n n a B

ri gg

s In

st it

u te

R ev

ie w

er ’s

M

a n u a l.

h tt

ps :/

/r ev

ie w

er sm

an ua

l. jo

an na

br ig

gs .o

rg /.

N A

M E

O F

A P

P R

O A

C H

C

O R

E C

IT A

T IO

N (

F R

O M

B O

O T

H E

T A

L .,

2 0

1 6

), W

IT H

L IN

K W

H E

N R

E F

E R

E N

C E

I S

O P

E N

-A C

C E

S S

O

T H

E R

C IT

A T

IO N

C on

ce p

t an

al ys

is /

sy n

th es

is

W al

ke r,

L .,

& A

va nt

, K . (

20 10

). S

tr a te

g ie

s fo

r th

eo ry

co

n st

ru ct

io n i

n n

u rs

in g.

( 5t

h ed

.) . U

pp er

S ad

dl e

R ei

ve r,

N

J: P

ea rs

on .

C ri

ti ca

l in

te rp

re ti

ve

sy n

th es

is

D ix

on -W

oo ds

, M .,

C av

er s,

D .,

& A

ga rw

al , S

., A

nn an

da le

, E

., A

rt hu

r, A

., H

ar ve

y, J

., …

S ut

to n,

A . (

20 06

).

C on

du ct

in g

a cr

it ic

al i

nt er

pr et

iv e

sy nt

he si

s of

t he

li

te ra

tu re

o n

ac ce

ss t

o he

al th

ca re

b y

vu ln

er ab

le g

ro up

s. B

M C

M ed

ic a l

R es

ea rc

h M

et h o d o lo

g y,

6 , 3

5. h

tt ps

:/ /

w w

w .n

cb i.

nl m

.n ih

.g ov

/p m

c/ ar

ti cl

es /P

M C

15 59

63 7/

pd f/

14 71

-2 28

8- 6-

35 .p

df .

E co

lo gi

ca l

tr ia

n gu

la ti

on

B an

ni ng

, J . (

20 13

). E

co lo

g ic

a l

tr ia

n g u la

ti o n :

A n a

p p ro

a ch

fo

r q u a li

ta ti

ve m

et a -s

yn th

es is

. W as

hi ng

to n,

D C

: U

S

D ep

ar tm

en t

of E

du ca

ti on

.

F ra

m ew

or k

s yn

th es

is

B ru

nt on

, G .,

O li

ve r,

S .,

O li

ve r,

K . (

20 06

). A

s yn

th es

is o

f re

se ar

ch a

dd re

ss in

g ch

il dr

en ’s

, y ou

ng p

eo pl

e’ s

an d

pa re

nt s’

v ie

w s

of w

al ki

ng a

nd c

yc li

ng f

or t

ra ns

po rt

. L

on do

n: E

P P

I- C

en tr

e.

G ro

u n

d ed

f or

m al

th

eo ry

E

av es

, Y . (

20 01

). A

s yn

th es

is t

ec hn

iq ue

f or

g ro

un de

d th

eo ry

d at

a an

al ys

is . J

o u rn

a l

o f

A d va

n ce

d N

u rs

in g,

3 5 ,

65 4–

66 3.

M et

a- ag

gr eg

at io

n

H an

ne s,

K .,

& L

oc kw

oo d,

C . (

20 11

). P

ra gm

at is

m a

s th

e

SUPPLEMENT B TO CHAPTER 30 Supplementary Resources for Qualitative Evidence Syntheses � 30-5

(C o n ti

n u ed

)

30-6 � PART 6 Building an Evidence Base for Nursing Practice

T A

B L

E 2

�

M a

jo r

R e

fe re

n ce

(s )

fo r

E a

ch Q

u a

li ta

ti v

e E

v id

e n

ce S

y n

th e

si s

A p

p ro

a ch

in T

a b

le 1

(C

o n

ti n

u e

d )

M et

a- et

h n

og ra

p h

y C

am pb

el l,

R .,

P ou

nd , P

., M

or ga

n, M

., D

ak er

-W hi

te , G

., B

ri tt

en , N

., P

il l,

R .,

… D

on ov

an , J

. ( 20

11 ).

E va

lu at

in g

m et

a- et

hn og

ra ph

y: S

ys te

m at

ic a

na ly

si s

an d

sy nt

he si

s of

q ua

li ta

ti ve

r es

ea rc

h. H

ea lt

h T

ec h n o lo

g y

A ss

es sm

en t,

1 5

, 1 –1

64 . h

tt ps

:/ /w

w w

.j ou

rn al

sl ib

ra ry

.n ih

r. ac

.u k/

ht a/

ht a1

54 30

/# /a

bs tr

ac t.

N ob

li t,

G .,

& H

ar e,

R . D

. ( 19

88 ).

M et

a -e

th n og

ra p h y:

S yn

th es

iz in

g q

u a li

ta ti

ve s

tu d ie

s. N

ew bu

ry P

ar k,

C A

: S

ag e.

M et

a- in

te rp

re ta

ti on

W

ee d,

M . (

20 05

). “

M et

a- in

te rp

re ta

ti on

”: A

m et

ho d

fo r

th e

in te

rp re

ti ve

s yn

th es

is o

f qu

al it

at iv

e re

se ar

ch .

F o ru

m :

Q u a li

ta ti

ve S

o ci

a l

R es

ea rc

h , 6 , 1

. h tt

p: //

w w

w .q

ua li

ta ti

ve -r

es ea

rc h.

ne t/

in de

x. ph

p/ fq

s/ ar

ti cl

e/ vi

ew /5

08 /1

09 7

M et

an ar

ra ti

ve

re vi

ew

G re

en ha

lg h,

T .,

& W

on g,

G . (

20 14

). T

ra in

in g m

a te

ri a ls

fo

r m

et a -n

a rr

a ti

ve r

ev ie

w s.

A va

il ab

le f

ro m

h tt

p: //

w w

w .

ra m

es es

pr oj

ec t.

or g/

m ed

ia /M

et a_

na rr

at iv

e_ re

vi ew

s_ tr

ai ni

ng _m

at er

ia ls

.p df

.

G re

en ha

lg h,

T .,

R ob

er t,

G .,

M ac

fa rl

an e,

F .,

B at

e, P

, K

yr ia

ki do

u, O

., &

P ea

co ck

, R . (

20 05

). S

to ry

li ne

s of

re

se ar

ch i

n di

ff us

io n

of i

nn ov

at io

n: A

m et

a- na

rr at

iv e

ap pr

oa ch

t o

sy st

em at

ic r

ev ie

w . S

o ci

a l

S ci

en ce

& M

ed ic

in e,

6 1 , 4

17 –4

30 .

M et

as tu

d y

P at

er so

n, B

. L .,

T ho

rn e,

S . E

., C

an am

, C .,

& J

il li

ng s,

C .

(2 00

1) . M

et a -s

tu d y

o f

q u a li

ta ti

ve h

ea lt

h r

es ea

rc h .

T ho

us an

d O

ak s,

C A

: S

ag e.

P at

er so

n, B

. ( 20

13 ).

M et

as yn

th es

is . I

n C

. T . B

ec k

(E d.

).

R o u tl

ed ge

i n te

rn a ti

o n a l

h a n d b o o k

o f

q u a li

ta ti

ve

n u rs

in g r

es ea

rc h (

pp . 3

31 –3

46 ).

N ew

Y or

k: R

ou tl

ed ge

.

M et

as u

m m

ar y

S an

de lo

w sk

i, M

., B

ar ro

so , J

., &

V oi

ls , C

. ( 20

07 ).

U si

ng

qu al

it at

iv e

m et

as um

m ar

y to

s yn

th es

iz e

qu al

it at

iv e

an d

qu an

ti ta

ti ve

d es

cr ip

ti ve

f in

di ng

s. R

es ea

rc h i

n N

u rs

in g

& H

ea lt

h , 3 0 , 9

9– 11

1. h

tt ps

:/ /w

w w

.n cb

i. nl

m .n

ih .g

ov /

pm c/

ar ti

cl es

/P M

C 23

29 80

6/ pd

f/ ni

hm s4

54 89

.p df

.

S an

de lo

w sk

i, M

., &

B ar

ro so

, J . (

20 07

). H

a n d b o o k

fo r

sy n th

es iz

in g q

u a li

ta ti

ve r

es ea

rc h . N

ew Y

or k:

S pr

in ge

r P

ub li

sh in

g C

om pa

ny .

N A

M E

O F

A P

P R

O A

C H

C

O R

E C

IT A

T IO

N (

F R

O M

B O

O T

H E

T A

L .,

2 0

1 6

), W

IT H

L IN

K W

H E

N R

E F

E R

E N

C E

I S

O P

E N

-A C

C E

S S

O

T H

E R

C IT

A T

IO N

T ho

rn e,

S .,

Je ns

en , L

., K

ea rn

ey , M

., N

ob li

t, G

., &

S

an de

lo w

sk i,

M . (

20 04

). Q

ua li

ta ti

ve m

et as

yn th

es is

: R

ef le

ct io

ns o

n m

et ho

do lo

gi c

or ie

nt at

io n

an d

id eo

lo gi

ca l

ag en

da . Q

u a li

ta ti

ve H

ea lt

h R

es ea

rc h , 1 4 ,

13 42

–1 36

5.

M et

as yn

th es

is

Z im

m er

, L . (

20 06

). Q

ua li

ta ti

ve m

et a-

sy nt

he si

s: A

q ue

st io

n of

d ia

lo gu

in g

w it

h te

xt s.

J o u rn

a l

o f

A d va

n ce

d N

u rs

in g,

5 3 , 3

11 –3

18 .

N ar

ra ti

ve s

yn th

es is

P

op ay

, J .,

R ob

er ts

, H .,

S ow

de n,

A .,

P et

ti cr

ew , M

., A

ra i,

L .,

R od

ge rs

, M .,

& B

ri tt

en , N

. ( 20

06 ).

G u id

a n ce

o n t

h e

co n d u ct

o f

n a rr

a ti

ve s

yn th

es is

i n s

ys te

m a ti

c re

vi ew

s. A

va il

ab le

f ro

m h

tt p:

// ci

te se

er x.

is t.

ps u.

ed u/

vi ew

do c/

do w

nl oa

d? do

i= 10

.1 .1

.1 78

.3 10

0& re

p= re

p1 &

ty pe

= pd

f.

T h

em at

ic s

yn th

es is

T

ho m

as , J

., &

H ar

de n,

A . (

20 08

). M

et ho

ds f

or t

he

th em

at ic

s yn

th es

is o

f qu

al it

at iv

e re

se ar

ch i

n sy

st em

at ic

re

vi ew

s. B

M C

M ed

ic a l

R es

ea rc

h M

et h o d o lo

g y,

1 0 ,

45 . h

tt ps

:/ /w

w w

.n cb

i. nl

m .n

ih .g

ov /p

m c/

ar ti

cl es

/ P

M C

24 78

65 6/

pd f/

14 71

-2 28

8- 8-

45 .p

df .

SUPPLEMENT B TO CHAPTER 30 Supplementary Resources for Qualitative Evidence Syntheses � 30-7

30-8 � PART 6 Building an Evidence Base for Nursing Practice

REFERENCES CITED IN SUPPLEMENT B TO CHAPTER 30

*Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthe- sis of qualitative research: A critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9, 59.

*Booth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Gerhardus, A., Wahlster, P., Van der Wilt, G., … Rehfuss, E. (2016). Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. Available from http://www.integrate-hta.eu/downloads/.

Hannes, K., & Lockwood, C. (2011). Pragmatism as the philo- sophical foundation for the Joanna Briggs meta-aggregative approach to qualitative evidence synthesis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67, 1632–1642.

Kastner, M., Antony, J., Soobiah, C., Straus, S., & Tricco, A. (2016). Conceptual recommendations for selecting the most

appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions related to complex evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 73, 43–49.

Saini, M., & Shlonsky, A. (2012). Systematic synthesis of quali- tative research. Oxford, IK: Oxford University Press.

*Schick-Makaroff, K., MacDonald, M., Plummer, M., Burgess, J., & Neander, W. (2016). What synthesis methodol- ogy should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis. AIMS Public Health, 3, 172–215.

*Thorne, S. (2017). Metasynthesis madness: What kind of mon- ster have we created? Qualitative Health Research, 27, 3–12.

Tricco, A., Soobiah, C., Antony, J., Cogo, E., MacDonald, H., Lillie, E., … Kastner, M. (2016). A scoping review identi- fies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 73, 19–28.

*A link to this open-access article is provided in the Toolkit for this chapter in the Resource Manual.