Series: Emerging Knowledge Synthesis Methods for Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence
Original Article
Conceptual recommendations for selecting the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions related to complex evidence

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.022Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

To compare and contrast different knowledge synthesis methods and map their specific steps through a scoping review to gain a better understanding of how to select the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions of complex evidence.

Study design and setting

Electronic databases were searched to identify studies reporting emerging knowledge synthesis methods (e.g., Realist review) across multidisciplinary fields. Two reviewers independently selected studies and abstracted data for each article.

Results

We synthesized diverse, often conflicting evidence to identify 12 unique knowledge synthesis methods and 13 analysis methods. We organized the 12 full knowledge synthesis methods according to their purpose, outputs and applicability for practice and policy, as well as general guidance on formulating the research question. To make sense of the overlap across these knowledge synthesis methods, we derived a conceptual algorithm to elucidate the process for selecting the optimal knowledge synthesis methods for particular research questions.

Conclusion

These findings represent a preliminary understanding on which we will base further advancement of knowledge in this field. As part of next steps, we will convene a meeting of international leaders in the field aimed at clarifying emerging knowledge synthesis approaches.

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)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

Conflict of interest: The authors have no competing interests to declare.

View full text