Andrew Booth

A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. METHODS Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework -- Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) -- was used to examine the main review types. RESULTS Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. CONCLUSIONS Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.

A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity.

BackgroundImplementation fidelity refers to the degree to which an intervention or programme is delivered as intended. Only by understanding and measuring whether an intervention has been implemented with fidelity can researchers and practitioners gain a better understanding of how and why an intervention works, and the extent to which outcomes can be improved.DiscussionThe authors undertook a critical review of existing conceptualisations of implementation fidelity and developed a new conceptual framework for understanding and measuring the process. The resulting theoretical framework requires testing by empirical research.SummaryImplementation fidelity is an important source of variation affecting the credibility and utility of research. The conceptual framework presented here offers a means for measuring this variable and understanding its place in the process of intervention implementation.

How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective

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.

Finding qualitative research: an evaluation of search strategies

BackgroundQualitative research makes an important contribution to our understanding of health and healthcare. However, qualitative evidence can be difficult to search for and identify, and the effectiveness of different types of search strategies is unknown.MethodsThree search strategies for qualitative research in the example area of support for breast-feeding were evaluated using six electronic bibliographic databases. The strategies were based on using thesaurus terms, free-text terms and broad-based terms. These strategies were combined with recognised search terms for support for breast-feeding previously used in a Cochrane review. For each strategy, we evaluated the recall (potentially relevant records found) and precision (actually relevant records found).ResultsA total yield of 7420 potentially relevant records was retrieved by the three strategies combined. Of these, 262 were judged relevant. Using one strategy alone would miss relevant records. The broad-based strategy had the highest recall and the thesaurus strategy the highest precision. Precision was generally poor: 96% of records initially identified as potentially relevant were deemed irrelevant. Searching for qualitative research involves trade-offs between recall and precision.ConclusionsThese findings confirm that strategies that attempt to maximise the number of potentially relevant records found are likely to result in a large number of false positives. The findings also suggest that a range of search terms is required to optimise searching for qualitative evidence. This underlines the problems of current methods for indexing qualitative research in bibliographic databases and indicates where improvements need to be made.

Beyond PICO: The SPIDER Tool for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis

Standardized systematic search strategies facilitate rigor in research. Current search tools focus on retrieval of quantitative research. In this article we address issues relating to using existing search strategy tools, most typically the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) formulation for defining key elements of a review question, when searching for qualitative and mixed methods research studies. An alternative search strategy tool for qualitative/mixed methods research is outlined: SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type). We used both the SPIDER and PICO search strategy tools with a qualitative research question. We have used the SPIDER tool to advance thinking beyond PICO in its suitable application to qualitative and mixed methods research. However, we have highlighted once more the need for improved indexing of qualitative articles in databases. To constitute a viable alternative to PICO, SPIDER needs to be refined and tested on a wider range of topics.

Effectiveness of screening and monitoring tests for diabetic retinopathy--a systematic review.

SUMMARY

A systematic review of foot ulcer in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. I: prevention

Aim To evaluate the role of preventative strategies in reducing foot ulcers in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus, both in the general population and those identified to be at a raised risk.

Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual).

Simon Lewin and colleagues present a methodology for increasing transparency and confidence in qualitative research synthesis.

Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports

ABSTRACT Although there is increasing demand for syntheses of qualitative research, little is known about papers that aim to report such syntheses. We searched for published reports of attempts to conduct syntheses of qualitative research in health and healthcare. Papers were included if they were published between 1988 and 2004, in the English language, and in a peer-reviewed journal. We identified a modest body of literature (42 papers) reporting syntheses of qualitative research in health and healthcare. We extracted data on the topic of the paper and on reported methods for searching, appraisal, and synthesis. Some papers reported purposive attempts to innovate with, and to adapt, methods for synthesis. Many papers lack explicitness about methods for searching, appraisal, and synthesis, and there is little evidence of emerging consensus on many issues. There was also some evidence of possibly inappropriate use of some techniques. We conclude that continued methodological progress and improved reporting are required.

Ten principles of good interdisciplinary team work.

BackgroundInterdisciplinary team work is increasingly prevalent, supported by policies and practices that bring care closer to the patient and challenge traditional professional boundaries. To date, there has been a great deal of emphasis on the processes of team work, and in some cases, outcomes.MethodThis study draws on two sources of knowledge to identify the attributes of a good interdisciplinary team; a published systematic review of the literature on interdisciplinary team work, and the perceptions of over 253 staff from 11 community rehabilitation and intermediate care teams in the UK. These data sources were merged using qualitative content analysis to arrive at a framework that identifies characteristics and proposes ten competencies that support effective interdisciplinary team work.ResultsTen characteristics underpinning effective interdisciplinary team work were identified: positive leadership and management attributes; communication strategies and structures; personal rewards, training and development; appropriate resources and procedures; appropriate skill mix; supportive team climate; individual characteristics that support interdisciplinary team work; clarity of vision; quality and outcomes of care; and respecting and understanding roles.ConclusionsWe propose competency statements that an effective interdisciplinary team functioning at a high level should demonstrate.