%0 Journal Article
%T Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review
%A Elaine Barnett-Page
%A James Thomas
%J BMC Medical Research Methodology
%D 2009
%I BioMed Central
%R 10.1186/1471-2288-9-59
%X A number of methodological and conceptual links between these methods were identified and explored, while contrasting epistemological positions explained differences in approaches to issues such as quality assessment and extent of iteration. Methods broadly fall into 'realist' or 'idealist' epistemologies, which partly accounts for these differences.Methods for qualitative synthesis vary across a range of dimensions. Commissioners of qualitative syntheses might wish to consider the kind of product they want and select their method ¨C or type of method ¨C accordingly.The range of different methods for synthesising qualitative research has been growing over recent years [1,2], alongside an increasing interest in qualitative synthesis to inform health-related policy and practice [3]. While the terms 'meta-analysis' (a statistical method to combine the results of primary studies), or sometimes 'narrative synthesis', are frequently used to describe how quantitative research is synthesised, far more terms are used to describe the synthesis of qualitative research. This profusion of terms can mask some of the basic similarities in approach that the different methods share, and also lead to some confusion regarding which method is most appropriate in a given situation. This paper does not argue that the various nomenclatures are unnecessary, but rather seeks to draw together and review the full range of methods of synthesis available to assist future reviewers in selecting a method that is fit for their purpose. It also represents an attempt to guide the reader through some of the varied terminology to spring up around qualitative synthesis. Other helpful reviews of synthesis methods have been undertaken in recent years with slightly different foci to this paper. Two recent studies have focused on describing and critiquing methods for the integration of qualitative research with quantitative [4,5] rather than exclusively examining the detail and rationale of methods for the s
%U http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/9/59