TY - JOUR

T1 - Structured methodology review identified seven (RETREAT) criteria for selecting qualitative evidence synthesis approaches

AU - Booth, Andrew

AU - Noyes, Jane

AU - Flemming, Kate

AU - Gehardus, Ansgar

AU - Wahlster, Philip

AU - Jan van der Wilt, Gert

AU - Mozygemba, Kati

AU - Refolo, Pietro

AU - Sacchini, Dario

AU - Tummers, Marcia

AU - Rehfuess, Eva

N1 - Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2018/7

Y1 - 2018/7

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To compare and contrast different methods of qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) against criteria identified from the literature and to map their attributes to inform selection of the most appropriate QES method to answer research questions addressed by qualitative research.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Electronic databases, citation searching and a study register were used to identify studies reporting QES methods. Attributes compiled from 26 methodological papers (2001-2014) were used as a framework for data extraction. Data were extracted into summary tables by one reviewer and then considered within the author team.RESULTS: We identified seven considerations determining choice of methods from the methodological literature, encapsulated within the mnemonic RETREAT (Review question - Epistemology - Time/Timescale - Resources - Expertise - Audience and purpose - Type of Data). We mapped 15 different published QES methods against these seven criteria. The final framework focuses on stand-alone QES methods but may also hold potential when integrating quantitative and qualitative data.CONCLUSION: These findings offer a contemporary perspective as a conceptual basis for future empirical investigation of the advantages and disadvantages of different methods of QES. It is hoped that this will inform appropriate selection of QES approaches.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To compare and contrast different methods of qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) against criteria identified from the literature and to map their attributes to inform selection of the most appropriate QES method to answer research questions addressed by qualitative research.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Electronic databases, citation searching and a study register were used to identify studies reporting QES methods. Attributes compiled from 26 methodological papers (2001-2014) were used as a framework for data extraction. Data were extracted into summary tables by one reviewer and then considered within the author team.RESULTS: We identified seven considerations determining choice of methods from the methodological literature, encapsulated within the mnemonic RETREAT (Review question - Epistemology - Time/Timescale - Resources - Expertise - Audience and purpose - Type of Data). We mapped 15 different published QES methods against these seven criteria. The final framework focuses on stand-alone QES methods but may also hold potential when integrating quantitative and qualitative data.CONCLUSION: These findings offer a contemporary perspective as a conceptual basis for future empirical investigation of the advantages and disadvantages of different methods of QES. It is hoped that this will inform appropriate selection of QES approaches.

KW - Journal Article

KW - Review

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.03.003

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.03.003

M3 - Review article

C2 - 29548841

VL - 99

SP - 41

EP - 52

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -