Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 May;73:29-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.12.011. Epub 2016 Feb 15.

Knowledge synthesis methods for integrating qualitative and quantitative data: a scoping review reveals poor operationalization of the methodological steps.

Author information

1
Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada; Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Health Sciences Building, 155 College Street, 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M7, Canada.
2
Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada.
3
Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Canada Health Sciences Building, 155 College Street, Suite 425, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M6, Canada.
4
Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada; Department of Geriatric Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 27 King's College Circle, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, Canada. Electronic address: Sharon.Straus@utoronto.ca.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

To describe and compare, through a scoping review, emerging knowledge synthesis methods for integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence in health care, in terms of expertise required, similarities, differences, strengths, limitations, and steps involved in using the methods.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:

Electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE) were searched, and two reviewers independently selected studies and abstracted data for qualitative analysis.

RESULTS:

In total, 121 articles reporting seven knowledge synthesis methods (critical interpretive synthesis, integrative review, meta-narrative review, meta-summary, mixed studies review, narrative synthesis, and realist review) were included after screening of 17,962 citations and 1,010 full-text articles. Common similarities among methods related to the entire synthesis process, while common differences related to the research question and eligibility criteria. The most common strength was a comprehensive synthesis providing rich contextual data, whereas the most common weakness was a highly subjective method that was not reproducible. For critical interpretive synthesis, meta-narrative review, meta-summary, and narrative synthesis, guidance was not provided for some steps of the review process.

CONCLUSION:

Some of the knowledge synthesis methods provided guidance on all steps, whereas other methods were missing guidance on the synthesis process. Further work is needed to clarify these emerging knowledge synthesis methods.

KEYWORDS:

Critical interpretive synthesis; Integrative review; Knowledge synthesis; Meta-narrative review; Meta-summary; Mixed studies review; Narrative synthesis; Realist review; Systematic review

Comment in

PMID:
26891948
DOI:
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.12.011
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center