How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective

Qualitative Research - Tập 6 Số 1 - Trang 27-44 - 2006
Mary Dixon‐Woods1, Sheila Bonas1, Andrew Booth2, David R. Jones1, Tina Miller3, Alex J. Sutton1, Rachel Shaw4, Jonathan A. Smith5, Bridget Young6
1University of Leicester
2University of Sheffield
3 (Oxford Brookes University)
4Aston University,
5University of London
6University of Liverpool,

Tóm tắt

Systematic review has developed as a specific methodology for searching for, appraising and synthesizing findings of primary studies, and has rapidly become a cornerstone of the evidence-based practice and policy movement. Qualitative research has traditionally been excluded from systematic reviews, and much effort is now being invested in resolving the daunting methodological and epistemological challenges associated with trying to move towards more inclusive forms of review. We describe our experiences, as a very diverse multidisciplinary group, in attempting to incorporate qualitative research in a systematic review of support for breastfeeding. We show how every stage of the review process, from asking the review question through to searching for and sampling the evidence, appraising the evidence and producing a synthesis, provoked profound questions about whether a review that includes qualitative research can remain consistent with the frame offered by current systematic review methodology. We conclude that more debate and dialogue between the different communities that wish to develop review methodology is needed, and that attempts to impose dominant views about the appropriate means of conducting reviews of qualitative research should be resisted so that innovation can be fostered.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Airy, G.B., 1861, On the Algebraical and Numerical Theory of Errors of Observations and the Combination of Observations

10.1001/jama.1992.03490020088036

10.1111/j.1365-2214.2004.00480.x

10.1177/1049732303253331

10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00371.x

10.1177/0193945902250034

10.1258/135581902320432732

10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00064-3

Cochrane, A.L., 1979, Medicines for the Year 2000

Culpepper, L., 1999, Lancet, 353, 829, 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)09101-6

Dixon-Woods, M., 2001, British Medical Journal, 323, 765, 10.1136/bmj.323.7316.765

10.1136/qshc.2003.008714

10.1177/135581960501000110

10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00392.x

EBM Working Group, 1992, Journal of the American Medical Association, 268, 2420, 10.1001/jama.1992.03490170092032

Edward G. Miner Library, 2004, ‘Evidence-based Filters for Ovid CINAHL’

10.1136/bmj.316.7124.61

Egger, M., 1995, Systematic Reviews

10.1177/104973239400400410

Evans, D., 2002, Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90, 290

10.1136/qshc.8.2.99

10.1046/j.1440-1800.2002.00146.x

10.3102/0013189X005010003

10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001

Hammersley, M., Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Leeds

10.1332/030557398782018293

10.1111/j.2044-8279.1998.tb01303.x

10.1177/104973239600600407

10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03196.x

10.1177/1049732303253480

10.7326/0003-4819-106-3-485

NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), 2001, Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness: CRD’s Guidance for those Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews, 2

10.4135/9781412985000

10.1111/j.1547-5069.1998.tb01237.x

10.4135/9781412985017

Pawson, R., 2002, ‘Does Megan’s Law Work? A Theory-driven Systematic Review’

Pawson, R., 2004, ‘Realist Synthesis: An Introduction’

10.1136/bmj.322.7278.98

10.1157/13057793

10.1177/1363459303007003002

10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11560-1

Sandelowski, M., 1997, Research in Nursing and Health, 20, 365, 10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199708)20:4<365::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-E

Schreiber, R., 1997, Completing a Qualitative Project: Details and Dialogue, 311

Shaw, R.L., 2004, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 4

Sikorski, J., 2002, The Cochrane Library

10.1177/1049732304269888

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Qualitative Research

Tập 6 Số 1

27-44

Thông tin tác giả