Systematic Reviews- Legacy Guide
About this Page
Why is this information important?
- Researchers in health science fields are increasingly recognizing the value of including qualitative studies in systematic reviews.
- Because qualitative and quantitative studies can be so different, however, it can be hard to know how to integrate them productively.
On this page you will find the following helpful resources:
- Articles and chapters that discuss methods for integrating qualitative studies into systematic reviews
- Examples of systematic reviews that include qualitative studies
- Selected books on qualitative studies and systematic reviews that are owned by UNC Libraries
- A short list of helpful websites and tutorials on the topic
See also: Assessing Qualitative Research
Articles, Manuals, Handbooks
The following articles and chapters offer some advice on how to include qualitative research in systematic reviews, as well as some examples of reviews that have done so.
Methods for Including Qualitative Research in Systematic Reviews
Butler, Ashleigh, Helen Hall, Beverley Copnell. (2016). A Guide to Writing a Qualitative Systematic Review Protocol to Enhance Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Health Care. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 13(3): 241-249.
Cochrane Review Handbook, Chapter 20: Qualitative Research and Cochrane reviews. 2011.
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Chapter QQ v1.02a June 14, 2013.Qualitative and Implementation Evidence and Cochrane Reviews. Authors: Jane Noyes, Karin Hannes, Andrew Booth, Janet Harris, Angela Harden, Jennie Popay, Alan Pearson, Margaret Cargo, and Tomas Pantoja on behalf of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group.
See Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Volume 97, May 2018, Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Guidance Series. UNC Chapel Hill users direct link.
- This supplemental guidance is intended to be used in conjunction with the current edition of the Cochrane Handbook.
- Note: the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 6, has been completed. A second edition of the book version is now in press and will be published by Wiley in October 2019. All the chapters contained in the printed version will be freely available online in browsable form; the online version will provide additional chapters and supplementary material mostly specific to the Cochrane context. The chapters from the Version 6 book are all now available as PDF chapters but only to registered Cochrane contributors (Archie login required).The printed copy and publicly accessible web version will be available in October 2019.
Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones DR, Miller T, Sutton AJ, Shaw RL, Smith JA, Young B. How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qualitative Research 2006; 6: 27-44.
Dixon-Woods, Mary, Shona Argawal, David Jones, Bridget Young, and Alex Sutton. Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy January 1, 2005 vol. 10 no. 1 45-53B
Harden, Angela. Mixed-Methods Systematic Reviews: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Findings. FOCUS 25, 2010.
Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual Chapter 2 (Systematic Reviews of Qualitative Evidence): Lockwood C, Porrit K, Munn Z, Rittenmeyer L, Salmond S, Bjerrum M, Loveday H, Carrier J, Stannard D. Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual, 4th edition. The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017. Available from https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/
Ludvigsen, Mette S., Elizabeth O.C. Hall, Gabriele Meyer, Liv Fegran, Hanne Aagaard, Lisbeth Uhrenfeldt. (2015) Using Sandelowski and Barroso’s Meta-Synthesis Method in Advancing Qualitative Evidence. Qualitative Health Research 26(3).PMID:25794523 DOI:10.1177/1049732315576493
- UNC Chapel Hill users: link to article in SAGE Journals Qualitative Health.
Examples of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Qualitative Research
Finfgeld-Connett, Deborah. Intimate partner abuse among older women: qualitative systematic review. Clinical Nursing Research 2014, 23:6 664-683.
Lucas, Patricia, Janis Baird, Lisa Arai, Catherine Law, and Helen M. Roberts. Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2007, 7:4 doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-4
Added Value of Qualitative Research with Randomized Clinical Trials
O'Cathain, Alicia, Jackie Goode, Sarah J. Drabble, Kate J. Thomas, Anne Rudolph, and Jenny Hewison. Getting added value from using qualitative research wtih randomized controlled trials: a qualitative interview study. Trials 2014, 15 (June): 215. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-215
Snowden, Claire (Trials) and David Gough (Systematic Reviews) (eds) Qualitative Methods, Trials, and Systematic Reviews. Joint Publication, Trials and Systematic Reviews.
- Snowden, Claire (2015). Trials editorial about the special joint publication: Qualitative and mixed methods research in trials. Trials 16: 558.
- Gough, David (2015). Systematic Reviews editorial about the special joint publication: Qualitative and mixed methods in systematic reviews. Systemaatic Reviews 4:81.
- The two sister-journals, Trials and Systematic Reviews, have, on the face of it, different readerships and deal with different issues. In both journals there is, however, a common and growing interest in the contribution of qualitative methods. We are seeing an expansion of the use and application of a range of techniques with entry into novel research areas and pursuit of new lines of inquiry. Our contributors are working within specific methods, with mixed methods, and across paradigms. This special issue covers these innovative and challenging areas, with the aim of sharing methodological practice, findings and reflections to drive forward and further the respective fields.
Systematic Review of Qualitative Research (Meta-Synthesis)
Korhonen, Anne, Tuovi Hakulinen-Viitanen, Virpi Jylha, Arja Holopainen. Meta-synthesis and evidence-based heath care: a method for systemic review. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 2013, 27:4, 1027-1034. doi: 10.1111/scs.12003
GRADE-CERQUAL Approach
PLOS Medicine Staff. (2016). Correction: Using Qualitative Evidence in Decision Making for Health and Social Interventions: An Approach to Assess Confidence in Findings from Qualitative Evidence Syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Medicine, 13(6), e1002065. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002065 PMID:27284910 PMCID: PMC4902189
- Original, uncorrected version: Lewin, S., Glenton, C., Munthe-Kaas, H., Carlsen, B., Colvin, C. J., Gülmezoglu, M., … Rashidian, A. (2015). Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Medicine, 12(10), e1001895. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001895 PMID: 26506244 PMCID: PMC4624425
See additional information in Website/Tutorial box, below.
Cochrane Methods: Qualitative & Implementation - Core Library of Qualitative Synthesis Methodology
- Core Library. NB: items represent key methodology resources. No endorsement of individual methods is implied by inclusion in this list. See Supplemental Handbook Guidance.
Meta-ethnography & interpretive (vs. aggregative) approaches
Meta-ethnography is generally considered an interpretative (vs. aggrevative) qualitative synthesis approach.
eMERGe Project
Funded by the National Institute for Health Research of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK, The aim of the eMERGe project, which ran from June 2015 to May 2017, was to develop a guideline to improve the way researchers report meta-ethnographies. The website includes many resources and publications. From the website:
- Meta-ethnography is an interpretive qualitative synthesis approach developed by George W. Noblit and R. Dwight Hare, in the field of education, in the 1980s. They designed the approach to address the inability of an aggregative synthesis of five ethnographic studies to explain the failure of racial desegregation in schools. In a meta-ethnography, the reviewers conducting the meta-ethnography aim to produce new interpretations that transcend the findings of individual studies, rather than simply to aggregate findings. Noblit and Hare described it as ‘making a whole into something more than the parts alone imply’ (Noblit & Hare, 1988, p. 28), i.e. going beyond the findings of any individual study.
Meta-ethnography differs from other qualitative evidence synthesis approaches in its underpinning theory, use of the authors’ interpretations (e.g. concepts, themes) from primary qualitative studies as data, and creation of new interpretations through its unique analytic synthesis process. Researchers select, analyse and interpret qualitative studies to answer focused questions on a specific topic (e.g. people’s experiences of having and being treated for arthritis) to come up with new insights and conclusions. The aim of the eMERGe project was to develop a guideline to improve the way researchers report meta-ethnographies.
-
EQUATOR NETWORK: guidelines for reporting meta-ethnographyEQUATOR Network (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research)
-
Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewers' Manual on aggregative vs. interpretive approaches"...meta-ethnography or the critical interpretive approach to qualitative evidence synthesis, which have a focus on re-interpretation and theory generation rather than aggregation."
-
Cochrane Methods: Qualitative & Implementation--Core Library of Qualitative Synthesis MethodologyIncludes the following 4 references.
Note from the Core Library: The following items represent key methodology resources. No endorsement of individual methods is implied by inclusion in this list. See Supplemental Handbook Guidance.
- Campbell R, Pound P, Morgan M, Daker-White G, Britten N, Pill R, Yardley L, Pope C, Donovan J. Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technol Assess. 2011 Dec;15(43):1-164.
- France, E. F., Ring, N., Thomas, R., Noyes, J., Maxwell, M., & Jepson, R. (2014). A methodological systematic review of what's wrong with meta-ethnography reporting. BMC medical research methodology, 14(1), 119.
- France, E. F., Wells, M., Lang, H., & Williams, B. (2016). Why, when and how to update a meta-ethnography qualitative synthesis. Systematic Reviews, 5(1). doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0218-4
- Toye, F., Seers, K., Allcock, N., Briggs, M., Carr, E., Andrews, J., & Barker, K. (2013). 'Trying to pin down jelly'-exploring intuitive processes in quality assessment for meta-ethnography. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), 46.
Some additional meta-ethnography resources and examples:
- SAGE Research Methods (Qualitative) contains many resources for meta-ethnography. "Meta-ethnography" can be searched from the general Sage Methods page.
- To see some examples of published meta-ethnographies in Scopus (which indexes both social science and health-related literature), you can run a quick and dirty search such as "public health AND meta-ethnography" or "public health AND (policy OR management) and meta-ethnography)" .
Search the UNC Library Catalog
The Books section of this page contains a small selection of the books available on including qualitative research in systematic reviews. To find more, click the links below to search the UNC library catalog.
Books
-
Doing a Systematic Review by
Call Number: HSL 1st floor reference & 3rd floor: W 20.5 D657 2014 Check availability of Doing a Systematic ReviewISBN: 9781446269688Publication Date: 2014Great book for Masters or a PhD students conducting a systematic review for your dissertation or thesis. NOTE: If you are considering purchasing a book, buy the 2nd edition (2017).
Written by experts with years of experience in conducting systematic reviews and supervising students doing systematic reviews, the book provides a roadmap to guide you through the process. Authors answer questions posed by real students carrying out reviews. Chapter on reviewing qualitative evidence. -
An Introduction to Systematic Reviews by
Call Number: Davis: H62.G68 2012ISBN: 9781849201803Publication Date: 2012-04-04Particularly helpful for Policy- and Social Science-related reviews as it draws on the work of the EPPI-Centre (Evidence for Policy & Practice Information-Centre) based in the Social Science Research Unit at the Institute of Education in London. NOTE: If you are considering purchasing a book, buy the 2nd edition (2017).
Overview of the nature, logic, diversity and process of undertaking systematic reviews as part of evidence informed decision making. Covers the full breadth of approaches to reviews from statistical meta analysis to meta ethnography. Five content sections: Approaches to reviewing, Getting started, Gathering and describing research, Appraising and synthesising data, Making use of reviews/models of research use. -
Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research (online) by
Call Number: R853.Q34 S26 2007 at Davis Library (5th floor), W 20.5 S214h 2007 at the Health Sciences Library and HSL History Collection, C378 UMs22.3 at the North Carolina Collection. Check availability of Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative ResearchISBN: 0826156959Publication Date: 2007-01-01 -
Reviewing Research Evidence for Nursing Practice (online only) by
ISBN: 9781405144230Publication Date: 2007-09-24 -
Synthesizing Qualitative and Quantitative Health Evidence (online only) by
ISBN: 033521956XPublication Date: 2007-07-01 -
Systematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research by
Call Number: HV11 .S266 2012, at Davis Library (5th floor). Check availability of Systematic Synthesis of Qualitative ResearchISBN: 9780195387216Publication Date: 2012-01-25 -
Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences by
ISBN: 9781405121101Publication Date: 2005-12-16(The links in this book tend to be out of date, but the explanations of the systematic review process are clear and well-laid out). Written by two highly-respected social scientists, provides an overview of systematic literature review methods: outlines the rationale and methods of systematic reviews; gives worked examples from social science and other fields; Takes the reader through the process stage by stage; Including detailed sections on assessing the quality of both quantitative, and qualitative research; searching for evidence in the social sciences; meta-analytic and other methods of evidence synthesis; publication bias; heterogeneity; and approaches to dissemination.
Websites/Tutorials
Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group
Joanna Briggs Institute Online Reviewer's Manual Chapter 2 (Systematic Reviews of Qualitative Evidence): Lockwood C, Porrit K, Munn Z, Rittenmeyer L, Salmond S, Bjerrum M, Loveday H, Carrier J, Stannard D. Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual, 4th edition. The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017. Available from https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/
Canadian Cochrane Center YouTube Tutorial on Qualitative Evidence Synthesis, published Dec 2, 2013
This recording is of the first webinar of the 2013-2014 Different Evidence, Different Syntheses Series. Jane Noyes of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group for the discussion was the presenter for the webinar held on November 28, 2013.This webinar explored:
a) when to consider undertaking a synthesis of qualitative evidence;
b) some frequently used methods and examples of developing methods for synthesising qualitative evidence; and
c) approaches for integrating qualitative and quantitative findings.
Seminar on CerQual: a new approach to qualitative evidence synthesis analysis Oct 13, 2014
Quality assessment tools
-
Appendix A: Tools To Assess Risk of Bias of Individual OutcomesIn: Viswanathan M, Ansari MT, Berkman ND, Chang S, Hartling L, McPheeters LM, Santaguida PL, Shamliyan T, Singh K, Tsertsvadze A, Treadwell JR. Assessing the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. March 2012. AHRQ Publication No.
12-EHC047-EF. Available at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ -
Observational Epidemiology Quality Rating ToolSanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:666-76.
-
Diagnostic Accuracy ToolWhiting P, Rutjes AWS, Dinnes J, et al. Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technol Assess 2004;8(25):iii, 1-234.
-
CASP ChecklistsA set of critical appraisal checklists. Checklists are available for systematic reviews, qualitative studies, RCTs, case-control studies, diagnostic studies, cohort studies, and economic evaluations.
-
LEGEND Evidence Evaluation ToolsA series of critical appraisal tools from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital. Contains tools for a wide variety of study designs, including prospective, retrospective, qualitative, and quantitative designs.
-
The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analysesValidated tool for assessing case-control and cohort studies.
Contact HSL About Systematic Reviews
Ready to start a systematic review? HSL Librarians can help!
Fill out the Systematic Review Request Form and the best-suited librarian will get back to you promptly.