Search Advanced

AIMS Public Health

2016, Volume 3, Issue 1: 172-215. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.172
Previous Article Next Article
Review

What Synthesis Methodology Should I Use? A Review and Analysis of Approaches to Research Synthesis.

  • 1.
    Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
  • 2.
    School of Nursing, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
  • 3.
    College of Nursing, Camosun College, Victoria, BC, Canada
  • 4.
    Student Services, University Health Services, Victoria, BC, Canada
  • Received: 10 November 2015 Accepted: 28 March 2016 Published: 30 March 2016

  • Background: When we began this process, we were doctoral students and a faculty member in a research methods course. As students, we were facing a review of the literature for our dissertations. We encountered several different ways of conducting a review but were unable to locate any resources that synthesized all of the various synthesis methodologies. Our purpose is to present a comprehensive overview and assessment of the main approaches to research synthesis. We use ‘research synthesis’ as a broad overarching term to describe various approaches to combining, integrating, and synthesizing research findings. Methods: We conducted an integrative review of the literature to explore the historical, contextual, and evolving nature of research synthesis. We searched five databases, reviewed websites of key organizations, hand-searched several journals, and examined relevant texts from the reference lists of the documents we had already obtained. Results: We identified four broad categories of research synthesis methodology including conventional, quantitative, qualitative, and emerging syntheses. Each of the broad categories was compared to the others on the following: key characteristics, purpose, method, product, context, underlying assumptions, unit of analysis, strengths and limitations, and when to use each approach. Conclusions: The current state of research synthesis reflects significant advancements in emerging synthesis studies that integrate diverse data types and sources. New approaches to research synthesis provide a much broader range of review alternatives available to health and social science students and researchers.

    Citation: Kara Schick-Makaroff, Marjorie MacDonald, Marilyn Plummer, Judy Burgess, Wendy Neander. What Synthesis Methodology Should I Use? A Review and Analysis of Approaches to Research Synthesis.[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2016, 3(1): 172-215. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.172

    Related Papers:

  • Background: When we began this process, we were doctoral students and a faculty member in a research methods course. As students, we were facing a review of the literature for our dissertations. We encountered several different ways of conducting a review but were unable to locate any resources that synthesized all of the various synthesis methodologies. Our purpose is to present a comprehensive overview and assessment of the main approaches to research synthesis. We use ‘research synthesis’ as a broad overarching term to describe various approaches to combining, integrating, and synthesizing research findings. Methods: We conducted an integrative review of the literature to explore the historical, contextual, and evolving nature of research synthesis. We searched five databases, reviewed websites of key organizations, hand-searched several journals, and examined relevant texts from the reference lists of the documents we had already obtained. Results: We identified four broad categories of research synthesis methodology including conventional, quantitative, qualitative, and emerging syntheses. Each of the broad categories was compared to the others on the following: key characteristics, purpose, method, product, context, underlying assumptions, unit of analysis, strengths and limitations, and when to use each approach. Conclusions: The current state of research synthesis reflects significant advancements in emerging synthesis studies that integrate diverse data types and sources. New approaches to research synthesis provide a much broader range of review alternatives available to health and social science students and researchers.


    加载中
    [1] Vos T, Barber RM, Bell B, et al. (2013). Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 386: 743-800.
    [2] 6. Bowman KG. (07) A research synthesis overview. Nurs Sci Q 20:171-176.
    [3] 7. Stevens KR. (2001) Systematic reviews. The heart of evidence-based practice. AACN Clin Issues 12:529-5.
    [4] 8. Upchurch S, Brosnan CA, Grimes DE. (2002) Teaching research synthesis to advanced practice nurses. J Nurs Educ :222-226.
    [5] 9. Whittemore R. (200 Combining evidence in nursing research: Methods and implications. Nurs Res 54:56-62.
    [6] 10. Feldman KA. (1971) Using the work of others: Some observations on reviewing and integrating. Sociol Educ 44:8102.
    [7] 11. Streiner DL. (2005) I have the answer, now what's the question?: Why meta-analyses do not provide definitive solutions. Can J Psychiat 50:829-831.
    [8] 12. Chatterji M. (2007) Grades of evidence: Variability in quality of findings in effectiveness studies of complex field interventions. Am J Eval 2 239-255.
    [9] 13. Jackson N, Waters E. (2005) Criteria for the systematic review of health promotion and public health interventions. Health Promot Int 20: 367-374.
    [10] 14. Torraco RJ. (2005) Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Hum Resource Dev Rev 4:356-367.
    [11] 15. Whittemore R, Knafl K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. J Adv Nurs 52:546-553.
    [12] 16. Cooper, H. (2003) Editorial. Psychol Bull :3-9.
    [13] 17. Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. (2002) A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof 25:12-37.
    [14] 18. Whittemore R, Knafl K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. J Adv Nurs 52:546-553.
    [15] 19. Smith MC, Stullenbarger E. (1991) A prototype for integrative review and meta-analysis of nursing research. J Adv Nurs 16:1272-1283.
    [16] 20. Cooper H. (1982) The integrative research review: A systematic approach. Beverly Hills: Sage.
    [17] 21. Jackson GB. (1980) Methods for integrative reviews. Rev Educ Res 50: 438-460.
    [18] 22. Glass GV. (1976) Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res 5:3-8.
    [19] 23. Glass GV. (8) Integrating findings: The meta-analysis of research. Rev Res Educ 5:351-379.
    [20] 24. Glass GV. (0) Meta–analysis at 25. Available from: http://www.gvglass.info/papers/meta25.html
    [21] 25. Rosenthal R, DiMatteo MR. (2001) Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annu Rev Psychol 52:59-82.
    [22] 26. Jenicek M. (1989) Meta-analysis in medicine: Where we are and where we want to go. J Clin Epidemiol 42:35-44.
    [23] 27. Mullen PD, Ramirez G. (2006) The promise and pitfalls of systematic reviews. Annu Rev Publ Health 27:81-102.
    [24] 28. Eysenck H. (1995) Meta-analysis or best evidence synthesis? J Eval Clin Prac 1:29-36.
    [25] 29. Slavin RE. (1986) Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educ Res 15:5-11.
    [26] 30. Slavin RE. (1995) Best evidence synthesis: An intelligent alternative to meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 48:9-18.
    [27] 31. Thorne S, Jensen L, Kearney MH, et al. (2004) Qualitative metasynthesis: Reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qual Health Res 14:1342-1365.
    [28] 32. Sandelowski M, Barroso J. (2003) Classifying the findings in qualitative studies. Qual Health Res 13:905-923.
    [29] 33. Sandelowski M, Barroso J. (2007) Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York: Springer Publishing Company Inc.
    [30] 34. Annells M. (2005) Guest editorial: A qualitative quandary: Alternative representations and meta-synthesis. J Clin Nurs 14:535-536.
    [31] 35. Barroso J, Gollop CJ, Sandelowski M, et al. (2003) The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies. Western J Nurs Res 25:153-178.
    [32] 36. Estabrooks CA, Field PA, Morse JM. (1994) Aggregating qualitative findings: An approach to theory development. Qual Health Res 4:503-511.
    [33] 37. Finfgeld DL. Metasynthesis (2003) The state of the art – so far. Qual Health Res 13:893-904.
    [34] 38. Finlayson K, Dixon A. (2008) Qualitative meta-synthesis: A guide for the novice. Nurs Res 15:59-71.
    [35] 39. Jensen LA, Allen MN. (1996) Meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Qual Health Res 6:553-560.
    [36] 40. Reis S, Hermoni D, Van-Raalte R, et al. (2007) Aggregation of qualitative studies – From theory to practice: Patient priorities and family medicine/general practice evaluations. Patient Educ Couns 65:214-222.
    [37] 41. Sandelowski, M. (2006) "Meta-jeopardy": The crisis of representation in qualitative metasynthesis. Nurs Outlook 54:10-16.
    [38] 42. Walsh D, Downe S. (2005) Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: A literature review. J Adv Nurs 50:204-211.
    [39] 43. Walsh D, Downe S. (2006) Appraising the quality of qualitative research. Midwifery 22:108-119.
    [40] 44. Zimmer L. (2006) Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts. J Adv Nurs 53:311-318.
    [41] 45. Walker L, Avant K. (1983) Strategies for theory construction in nursing. Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
    [42] 46. Rodgers BL, Knafl KA. (2000) Concept development in nursing: Foundations, techniques and applications. Philadelphia: Saunders.
    [43] 47. Morse J. (1995) Exploring the theoretical basis of nursing using advanced techniques of concept analysis. Adv Nurs Sci 17:31-46.
    [44] 50. Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, et al. (2005). Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Po 10:45-53.
    [45] 51. Kearney MH. (1998). Ready-to-wear: Discovering grounded formal theory. Res Nurs Health 21:179-186.
    [46] 53. Paterson BL, Dubouloz CJ, Chevrier J, et al. (2009) Conducting qualitative metasynthesis research: Insights from a metasynthesis project. Int J Qual Methods 8, 22-33.
    [47] 54. Paterson BL, Thorne SE, Canam C, et al. (2001) Meta-study of qualitative health research: A practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
    [48] 55. McCormick J, Rodney P, Varcoe C. (2003). Reinterpretations across studies: An approach to meta-analysis. Qual Health Res 13:933-944.
    [49] 56. Schreiber R, Crooks D, Stern PN. (1997) Qualitative meta-analysis. In Morse JM, editor. Completing a qualitative project: Details and dialogue. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 311-326.
    [50] 57. Stern PN, Harris CC. (1985) Women's health and the self-care paradox: A model to guide self-care readiness. Health Care Women In 6:151-163.
    [51] 58. Varcoe C, Rodney P, McCormick J. (2003) Health care relationships in context: An analysis of three ethnographies. Qual Health Res 13:957-973.
    [52] 59. Weed M. (2008) A potential method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research: Issues in the development of `meta-interpretation`. Int J Soc Res Meth 11:13-28.
    [53] 60. Atkins S, Lewin S, Smith H, et al. Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: Lessons learnt. BMC Med Res Methodol 8:1471-2288.
    [54] 61. Noblit GW, Hare RD. (1988) Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    [55] 62. Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, et al. (2003) Evaluative meta-ethnography: A synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med 56:671-684.
    [56] 63. Arksey H, O'Malley L. (2005) Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Meth 8:19-32.
    [57] 64. Best A, Terpstra JL, Moore G, et al. (2009) Building knowledge integration systems for evidence-informed decisions. J Health Organ Manag 23:627-641.
    [58] 65. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, et al. (2008) Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Intl J Technol Ass 24:133-139.
    [59] 66. Saul JE, Willis CD, Bitz J, et al. (2013) A time-responsive tool for informing policy making: Rapid realist review. Implement Sci 8. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-8-8-103
    [60] 67. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, et al. (2005) Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: A meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Soc Sci Med 61:417-430.
    [61] 68. Pawson R. (2002) Evidence-based policy: The promise of 'realist synthesis.' Evaluation 8:340-358.
    [62] 69. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, et al. Realist view – A new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Po 10:21-34.
    [63] 70. Sandelowski M, Barroso J, Voils CI. (2007) Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings. Res Nurs Health 30:99-111.
    [64] 71. Dixon Woods M, Kirk D, Agarwal S, et al. (2005) Vulnerable groups and access to health care: A critical interpretive review. Available from: http://www.netscc.ac.uk/hsdr/files/project/SDO_FR_08-1210-025_V01.pdf
    [65] 72. Dixon Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, et al. (2006) Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-35.
    [66] 73. Entwistle V, Firnigl D, Ryan M, et al. (2012) Which experiences of health care delivery matter to service users and why? A critical interpretive synthesis and conceptual map. J Health Serv Res Po 17:70-78.
    [67] 74. Heaton J, Corden A, Parker G. (2012) 'Continuity of care': A critical interpretive synthesis of how the concept was elaborated by a national research programme. Int J Integr Care 12. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3429143/
    [68] 75. Harden A, Garcia J, Oliver S, et al. (2004) Applying systematic review methods to studies of people's views: An example from public health research. J Epidemiol Commun H 58:794-800.
    [69] 76. Voils CI, Sandelowski M, Barroso J, et al. (2008) Making sense of qualitative and quantitative findings in mixed research synthesis studies. Field Method 20:3-25.
    [70] 77. Dixon Woods M, Fitzpatrick R. (2001) Qualitative research in systematic reviews. Brit Med J 323:765-766.
    [71] 78. Goldsmith MR, Bankhead CR, Austoker J. (2007) Synthesising quantitative and qualitative research in evidence-based patient information. J Epidemiol Commun H 61:262-270.
    [72] 79. Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. (2005) Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Po 10:6-20.
    [73] 80. Popay J. (2003) Qualitative research and the epidemiological imagination: A vital relationship. Gac Sanit 17 Suppl 3: 58-63.
    [74] 81. Cochrane. (2015) Available from http://www.cochrane.org/
    [75] 82. The Campbell Collaboration. (2015) What helps? What harms? Based on what evidence? Available from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/
    [76] 83. Conn VS, Rantz MJ. (2003) Research methods: Managing primary study quality in meta-analyses. Res Nurs Health 26:322-333.
    [77] 84. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, et al. (2004) Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. MILBANK Q 82:581-629.
    [78] 85. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Bate P, et al. (2005) Diffusion of innovations in health service organizations: A systematic literature review. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Inc.
    [79] 86. Glaser BG, Strauss A. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
    [80] 87. MacDonald M. (2001) Finding a critical perspective in grounded theory. In: Schreiber RS, Stern PN, editors. Using grounded theory in nursing. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 113-158.
    [81] 89. Guba E, Lincoln Y. (1989) Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
    [82] 90. Sandelowski M. (1989) The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Adv Nurs Sci 8:27-37.
    [83] 91. Moreira T. (2007) Entangled evidence: Knowledge making in systematic reviews in healthcare. Sociol Health Ill 29:180-197.
    [84] 92. Voils CI, Barroso J, Hasselblad V, et al. (2007) In or out? Methodological considerations for including and excluding findings from a meta-analysis of predictors of antiretroviral adherence in HIV-positive women. J Adv Nurs 59:163-177.
    [85] 93. Oliver S, Harden A, Rees R, et al. (2005) An emerging framework for including different types of evidence in systematic reviews for public policy. Evaluation 11:428-446.
    [86] 94. Poland B, Frohlich KL, Cargo M. (2008) Context as a fundamental dimension of health promotion program evaluation. In: Potvin L, McQueen D, editors. Health promotion evaluation practices in the Americas. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 299-318.
    [87] 95. LaRocca R, Yost J, Dobbins M, et al. (2012) The effectiveness of knowledge translation strategies used in public health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 12:751.
    [88] 97. Risjord M. (2009) Rethinking concept analysis. J Adv Nurs 65:684-691.
    [89] 98. Wilson J. (1969) Thinking with concepts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
    [90] 99. Rodgers BL. (1993) Concept analysis: An evolutionary view. In: Rodgers BL, Knafl KA, editors. Concept Development in Nursing: Foundations, Techniques, and Applications. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 73-92.
    [91] 100.Bhaskar R. (1979) The possibility of naturalism. Atlantic Heights, NJ: Humanities Press.
    [92] 101.Kirkevold M. (1997) Integrative nursing research: An important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. J Adv Nurs 25:977-984.
    [93] 102.Kelly M, Morgan A, Ellis S, et al. (2010) Evidence based public health: A review of the experience of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of developing public health guidance in England. Soc Sci Med 71:1056–1062.
    [94] 103.Droogan J, Cullum N. (1984) Systematic reviews in nursing. Int J Nurs Stud 35:13-22.
    [95] 104.The Joanna Briggs Institute. (2015) Available from: http://www.joannabriggs.org/index.html
    [96] 105.Biesta G. (2010) Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. Mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 95-118.
    [97] 107.Wong G, Westhorp G, Pawson R, et al. (2013) Greenhalgh T. Realist synthesis: RAMESES training materials. Available from: http://www.ramesesproject.org/media/Realist_reviews_training_materials.pdf
    [98] 108.Greenhalgh T, Wong G. (2013) Training materials for meta-narrative reviews. Available from: http://www.ramesesproject.org/media/Meta_narrative_reviews_training_materials.pdf
    [99] 109.Schwandt TA. (1) Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, 118-137.
    [100] 110.Blumer H. (1969) Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [101] 111.Milliken J, Schreiber R. (2001) Can you "do" symbolic interactionism without grounded theory? In: Schreiber RS, Stern PN, editors. Using grounded theory in nursing. New York: Springer, 177-190.
    [102] 112.Münch R. (1994) Sociological theory: From the 1850s to the 1920s. Chicago: Nelson Hall Publishers.
    [103] 113.Strauss A. (1993) Continual permutations of action. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
    [104] 114.Charmaz K. (2006) Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
    [105] 115.Coryn CLS, Noakes LA, Westine CD, et al. (2011) A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. Am J Eval 32:199-226.
    [106] 116.Powell S, Tod J, Cornwall J, et al. (2004) A systematic review of how theories explain learning behavior in school contexts. London: EPPI-Centre.
    [107] 117.Baker WL, White MC, Cappelleri JC, et al. (2009) Understanding heterogeneity in meta-analysis: The role of meta-regression. Int J Clin Pract 63:1426-1434.
    [108] 118.Thompson SG, Higgins JPT. (2001) How should meta-regression analysis be undertaken and interpreted? MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge. Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.16.4099&rep=rep1&type=pdf
    [109] 119.Greco T, Biondi-Zoccai G, Saleh O, et al. (2015) The attractiveness of network meta-analysis: A comprehensive systematic and narrative review. Heart Lung Vessel 7:133-142.
    [110] 120.Li T, Puhan MA, Vedula SS, Singh S, et al. (2011) Network meta-analysis – highly attractive but more methodological research is needed. BMC Medicine 9:79. Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/9/79
    [111] 121.Mills EJ, Thorlund K, Ioannidis JPA. (2013) Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis. BMJ 346:f2914. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2914
    [112] 122.Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. (2010) Meta-analysis of individual patient data: Rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ 340:c221. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c221
    [113] 123.Thomas D, Radji S, Benedetti A. (2014) Systematic review of methods for individual patient data meta-analysis with binary outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:79. Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/14/79
    [114] 124.Hunt M. (1997) How science takes stock. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
    [115] 125.Sandelowski M, Voils C, Barroso J. (2007) Comparability work and the management of difference in research synthesis studies. Soc Sci Med 64:236-247.
    [116] 126.Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, et al. (2013) RAMESES publication standards: Metanarrative reviews. J Adv Nurs 69:987-1004.
    [117] 127.Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, et al. (2013) RAMESES publication standards: Realist syntheses. J Adv Nurs 69:1005-1022.
    [118] 128.Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, et al. (2013) Quality standards for realist synthesis and meta-narrative reviews. Available from: http://betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/Quality_standards_for_RS_and_MNR_v3final.pdf
    [119] 129.Levac D, Colguhoun H, O'Brien KK. (2010) Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 5:69.
    [120] 131.Sandelowski M, Trimble F, Woodard EK, et al. (2006) From synthesis to script: Transforming qualitative research findings for use in practice. Qual Health Res 16:1350-1370.
    [121] 132.Grimshaw J, Santesso N, Cumpston M, et al. (2006) Knowledge for knowledge translation. The role of the Cochrane Collaboration. J Contin Educ Health 26:52-62.
    [122] 133.Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, et al. (2006) Lost in translation: time for a map. J Contin Educ Health 26:13–24.
    [123] 134.Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. (2009) Knowledge translation in health care: Moving from evidence to action. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
    [124] 135.Miles MB, Huberman AM. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [125] 136.Oliver S, Harden A, Rees R, et al. (2008) Young people and mental health: Novel methods for systematic review of research on barriers and facilitators. Health Educ Res 23:770-790.
    [126] 137.Harden A, Thomas J. (2005) Methodological issues in combining diverse study types in systematic reviews. Int J Soc Res Meth 8:257-271.
    [127] 138.Dixon Woods M, Fitzpatrick R, Roberts K. (2001) Including qualitative research in systematic reviews. J Eval Clin Prac 7:125-133.
    [128] 139.Anello C, Fleiss JL. (1995) Exploratory or analytic meta-analysis: Should we distinguish between them. J Clin Epidemiol 48:109-116.
    [129] 140.Petticrew M. (2003) Why certain systematic reviews reach uncertain conclusions. Brit Med J 326:756-758.
    [130] 141.Avant C. (2000) The Wilson method of concept analysis. In: Rodgers BL, Knafl KA, editors. Concept Development in Nursing: Foundations, Techniques, and Applications. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 55-64.
    [131] 142.Knafl KA, Deatrick JA. (2000) Knowledge synthesis and concept development in nursing. In: Rodgers BL, Knafl KA, editors. Concept Development in Nursing: Foundations, Techniques, and Applications. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 39-54.
    [132] 143.Rodgers BL. (1991) Using concept analysis to enhance clinical practice and research. Dimens Crit Care Nurs 10:28-34.
    [133] 144.Duncan C, Cloutier JD, Bailey PH. (2007) Concept analysis: The importance of differentiating the ontological focus. J Adv Nurs 58:293-300.
    [134] 145.Chinn P, Jacobs M. (1983) Theory and nursing: A systematic approach. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby.
    [135] 146.Chinn P, Kramer M. (1991) Theory and nursing: A systematic approach. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby.
    [136] 147.Schwartz-Barcott D, Kim H. (1993) An expansion and elaboration of the Hybrid Model of Concept Development in nursing. In Rodgers BL, Knafl KA, editors. Concept Development in Nursing: Foundations, Techniques, and Applications. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 107-134.
    [137] 148.Hupcey JE, Morse JM, Lenz ER, et al. (1996) Wilsonian methods of concept analysis: A critique. Sch Inq Nurs Prac 10:185-210.
    [138] 149.Davis K, Drey N, Gould D. (2009) What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. Int J Nurs Stud 46:-1400.
    [139] 150.Valaitis R, Martin-Misener R, Wong S, et al. (2012) Strengthening Primary Health Care through Public Health and Primary Care Collaboration Team: Methods, strategies and technologies used to conduct a scoping literature review of collaboration between primary care and public health. Prim Health Care Res Dev 13:219-236.
    [140] 151.Grant M, Booth A. (2009) A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J 26:91-108.
    [141] 152.Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. (2010) Expediting systematic reviews: Methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-56
    [142] 153.Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, et al. (2012) Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Sys Rev doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-10
    [143] 154.Riley B, Norman CD, Best A. (2012) Knowledge integration in public health: A rapid review using system thinking. Evid Policy 8:417-431.
    [144] 155.Mercille G. (2008) A realist approach to the systematic review. In: Potvin L, McQueen D, editors. Promotion evaluation practices in the Americas. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 81-100.
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2016 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索
AIMS Public Health
3.1 4.8

Metrics

Article views(18389) PDF downloads(3065) Cited by(126)

Preview PDF
Download XML
Export Citation
Article outline

Figures and Tables

Tables(2)

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog