TY - JOUR
T1 - Structured methodology review identified seven (RETREAT) criteria for selecting qualitative evidence synthesis approaches
AU - Booth, Andrew
AU - Noyes, Jane
AU - Flemming, Kate
AU - Gehardus, Ansgar
AU - Wahlster, Philip
AU - Jan van der Wilt, Gert
AU - Mozygemba, Kati
AU - Refolo, Pietro
AU - Sacchini, Dario
AU - Tummers, Marcia
AU - Rehfuess, Eva
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - OBJECTIVE:\r\nTo compare and contrast different methods of qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) against criteria identified from the literature and to map their attributes to inform selection of the most appropriate QES method to answer research questions addressed by qualitative research.\r\n\r\nSTUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:\r\nElectronic databases, citation searching and a study register were used to identify studies reporting QES methods. Attributes compiled from 26 methodological papers (2001-2014) were used as a framework for data extraction. Data were extracted into summary tables by one reviewer and then considered within the author team.\r\n\r\nRESULTS:\r\nWe identified seven considerations determining choice of methods from the methodological literature, encapsulated within the mnemonic RETREAT (Review question - Epistemology - Time/Timescale - Resources - Expertise - Audience and purpose - Type of Data). We mapped 15 different published QES methods against these seven criteria. The final framework focuses on stand-alone QES methods but may also hold potential when integrating quantitative and qualitative data.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION:\r\nThese findings offer a contemporary perspective as a conceptual basis for future empirical investigation of the advantages and disadvantages of different methods of QES. It is hoped that this will inform appropriate selection of QES approaches.
AB - OBJECTIVE:\r\nTo compare and contrast different methods of qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) against criteria identified from the literature and to map their attributes to inform selection of the most appropriate QES method to answer research questions addressed by qualitative research.\r\n\r\nSTUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:\r\nElectronic databases, citation searching and a study register were used to identify studies reporting QES methods. Attributes compiled from 26 methodological papers (2001-2014) were used as a framework for data extraction. Data were extracted into summary tables by one reviewer and then considered within the author team.\r\n\r\nRESULTS:\r\nWe identified seven considerations determining choice of methods from the methodological literature, encapsulated within the mnemonic RETREAT (Review question - Epistemology - Time/Timescale - Resources - Expertise - Audience and purpose - Type of Data). We mapped 15 different published QES methods against these seven criteria. The final framework focuses on stand-alone QES methods but may also hold potential when integrating quantitative and qualitative data.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION:\r\nThese findings offer a contemporary perspective as a conceptual basis for future empirical investigation of the advantages and disadvantages of different methods of QES. It is hoped that this will inform appropriate selection of QES approaches.
KW - Systematic review
KW - qualitative evidence synthesis
KW - qualitative research
KW - review methods
KW - Systematic review
KW - qualitative evidence synthesis
KW - qualitative research
KW - review methods
UR - https://publicatt.unicatt.it/handle/10807/118449
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85044940994&origin=inward
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85044940994&origin=inward
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.03.003
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.03.003
M3 - Article
SN - 0895-4356
SP - N/A-N/A
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
IS - N/A
ER -