Series: Emerging Knowledge Synthesis Methods for Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative EvidenceOriginal ArticleConceptual recommendations for selecting the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions related to complex evidence
Introduction
We aimed to make sense of conflicting information about emerging knowledge synthesis methods (e.g., meta-narrative review, realist review) by conducting a scoping review [1] across multidisciplinary fields (including health, education, and psychology). Our goal was to compare and contrast different knowledge synthesis methods and map their specific steps to gain a better understanding of how to select the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions related to complex evidence. Our protocol has been published elsewhere [2], and we described the methods and main results in an earlier article in the current series [3]. In this, the fifth article in the series, we summarize our findings and offer conceptual recommendations.
Section snippets
Summary of scoping review
In a commentary for this series [4], we described the impetus for our work, namely, the recent evolution of knowledge synthesis methods. The growing complexity of health care issues has increased the need for investigation of complex questions, which in turn has highlighted the need to move beyond simply understanding “what works” (through traditional systematic reviews of effectiveness) to consider “why, for whom, and under what contexts” it works (through other knowledge synthesis methods,
Implications and recommendations
Our work has several implications. We have advanced the knowledge of different knowledge synthesis methods, which has, to date, been scattered in the literature. Moreover, we have identified the need to enhance the description of these methods. In her 1959 account, Isabella Leitch recognized the value of knowledge synthesis: “the technique of the research review, by virtue of the assembly and use of scattered records, appears to be unequaled as an instrument for retrieval of buried work. It
Knowledge translation and next steps
We synthesized diverse, often conflicting, evidence from multidisciplinary fields to identify 12 unique knowledge synthesis methods and 13 analysis methods. These findings represent a preliminary understanding on which we will base further advancement of knowledge in this field. Currently, we cannot provide guidance beyond our conceptual recommendations, which highlight gaps in the literature, particularly in terms of elucidating the purpose and conduct of emerging knowledge synthesis methods.
Acknowledgments
The study was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, grant number: KST-116633) Knowledge Synthesis grant. ACT holds a CIHR/Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network New Investigator Award in Knowledge Synthesis, and SES holds a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Translation. The authors thank Drs. Jeremy Grimshaw, David Moher, and Peter Tugwell, who provided support and expertise in knowledge synthesis methods and knowledge translation for our scoping review protocol.
References (20)
- et al.
A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalise the method
J Clin Epidemiol
(2016) - et al.
Engaging researchers on developing, using and improving knowledge synthesis methods: introduction to a series of articles describing the results of a scoping review on emerging knowledge synthesis methods
J Clin Epidemiol
(2016) - et al.
Knowledge synthesis methods for integrating qualitative and quantitative data: a scoping review reveals poor operationalisation of the methodological steps
J Clin Epidemiol
(2016) - et al.
Knowledge synthesis methods for generating or refining theory: a scoping review reveals that little guidance is available
J Clin Epidemiol
(2016) - et al.
Involving parents in managing their child's long-term condition-a concept synthesis of family-centered care and partnership-in-care
J Pediatr Nurs
(2015) - et al.
Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review
Social Sci Med
(2005) - et al.
Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework
Int J Social Res Methodol
(2005) - et al.
What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review
BMC Med Res Methodol
(2012) - et al.
Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field
J Health Serv Res Pol
(2005) Isabella Leitch's contributions to the development of systematic reviews of research evidence
J R Soc Med
(2010)
Cited by (0)
Conflict of interest: The authors have no competing interests to declare.