Skip to main content Accesibility Help
×
×
Home

Methods of synthesizing qualitative research studies for health technology assessment

  • Nicola Ring (a1), Ruth Jepson (a1) and Karen Ritchie (a2)
Abstract

Objectives: Synthesizing qualitative research is an important means of ensuring the needs, preferences, and experiences of patients are taken into account by service providers and policy makers, but the range of methods available can appear confusing. This study presents the methods for synthesizing qualitative research most used in health research to-date and, specifically those with a potential role in health technology assessment.

Methods: To identify reviews conducted using the eight main methods for synthesizing qualitative studies, nine electronic databases were searched using key terms including meta-ethnography and synthesis. A summary table groups the identified reviews by their use of the eight methods, highlighting the methods used most generally and specifically in relation to health technology assessment topics.

Results: Although there is debate about how best to identify and quality appraise qualitative research for synthesis, 107 reviews were identified using one of the eight main methods. Four methods (meta-ethnography, meta-study, meta-summary, and thematic synthesis) have been most widely used and have a role within health technology assessment. Meta-ethnography is the leading method for synthesizing qualitative health research. Thematic synthesis is also useful for integrating qualitative and quantitative findings. Four other methods (critical interpretive synthesis, grounded theory synthesis, meta-interpretation, and cross-case analysis) have been under-used in health research and their potential in health technology assessments is currently under-developed.

Conclusions: Synthesizing individual qualitative studies has becoming increasingly common in recent years. Although this is still an emerging research discipline such an approach is one means of promoting the patient-centeredness of health technology assessments.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Methods of synthesizing qualitative research studies for health technology assessment
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Methods of synthesizing qualitative research studies for health technology assessment
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Methods of synthesizing qualitative research studies for health technology assessment
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
References
Hide All
1. Barroso, J, Gollop, CJ, Sandelowski, M, et al. The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies. West J Nurs Res. 2003;25:153178.
2. Dixon-Woods, M, Agarwal, S, Jones, D, Young, B, Sutton, A. Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10:4553.
3. Dixon-Woods, M, Sutton, AJ, Shaw, R, et al. Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: A quantitative and qualitative comparison of three methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12:4247.
4. Facey, K. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334340.
5. Barnett-Page, E, Thomas, J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: A critical review. London: Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating (EPPI) Centre, Social Science Research Unit; 2009.
6. Bondas, T, Hall, EO. Challenges in approaching metasynthesis research. Qual Health Res. 2007;17:113121.
7. Dixon-Woods, M, Booth, A, Sutton, AJ. Synthesizing qualitative research: A review of published reports. Qual Res. 2007;7:375422.
8. Edwards, M, Davies, M, Edwards, A. What are the external influences on information exchange and shared decision-making in healthcare consultations: A meta-synthesis of the literature. Patient Edu Couns. 2009;75:3752.
9. Flemming, K, Briggs, M. Electronic searching to locate qualitative research: Evaluation of three strategies. J Adv Nurs. 2007;57:95100.
10. Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment. DACEHTA Health Technology Assessment Handbook. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment, National Board of Health; 2007.
11. Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual. Adelaide, Australia: Joanna Briggs Institute; 2008.
12. Malpass, A, Shaw, A, Sharp, D, et al. “Medication Career” or “Moral Career”? The two sides of managing antidepressants: A meta-ethnography of patients’ experience of antidepressants. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68:154168.
13. Malterud, K. Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet. 2001;358:483488.
14. Mason, J. Qualitative researching. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2007.
15. Mays, N, Pope, C. Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;320:5052.
16. Noblit, GW, Hare, RD. Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. London: Sage; 1988.
17. Noyes, J, Popay, J, Pearson, A, Hannes, K, Booth, A. Chapter 20: Qualitative research and cochrane reviews. In: Higgins, JPT, Green, S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.0.1 (updated March 2011). www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/cochrane/handbook (accessed August 2011).
18. Ring, N, Ritchie, K, Mandava, L, Jepson, R. A guide to synthesizing qualitative research for researchers undertaking health technology assessments and systematic reviews. 2011. http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/programmes/clinical_cost_effectiveness/programme_resources/synth_qualitative_research (accessed August 2011).
19. Sandelowski, M, Barroso, J. The travesty of choosing after positive prenatal diagnosis. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2005;34:307318.
20. Sandelowski, M, Barroso, J. Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2007.
21. Thomas, J, Harden, A, Oakley, A, et al. Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews. BMJ. 2004;328:10101012.
22. Thomas, J, Harden, A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:45.
23. Thorne, S. Data analysis in qualitative research. Evid Based Nurs. 2000;3:6870.
24. Thorne, S. The role of qualitative research within an evidence-based context: Can metasynthesis be the answer? Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46:569575.
25. Tong, A, Morton, RL, Howard, K, Craig, J. Adolescent experiences following organ transplantation: A systematic review of qualitative studies. J Pediat. 2010;155:542549.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary Material

Ring Supplementary Material
Ring Supplementary Material

 Unknown (35 KB)
35 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed