Background: The issue of and methods for integrating data from different traditions within systematic reviews are receiving increased attention, but clear methods to enable the synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence remain in their infancy. Integrative synthesis approaches in systematic reviews of the factors that perpetuate a certain practice present a constructive view into the most appropriate response to populations needs, and the relevance of and subsequent effectiveness of interventions. Objective: We present a systematic review of factors promoting and hindering female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), which comprised both quantitative and qualitative primary data. Here, we describe the process of integrating qualitative evidencewith quantitative evidence in our systematic review. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the factors promoting and hindering the practice of FGM/C as expressed by stakeholders residing in Western countries. We applied recommendations by the EPPI-Centre and the Cochrane Handbook concerning integration. Results: We grouped all included studies (n=24) according to their methodological focus, and subsequent study appraisal, data extraction and analyses of quantitative and qualitative evidence were largely completed in separate streams. In our integrative evidence approach (Figure 1), we used quantitative data as our point of departure. We ranked and grouped similar quantitative factors promoting and hindering FGM/C. Qualitative findings were grouped into thematic categories, using apriori codes from the quantitative studies to seek out evidence from the qualitative findings. We integrated factors identified from the quantitative data with the thematic categories from the qualitative data by contrasting and comparing, using a matrix. Finally, we created a conceptual model linking quantitative factors and qualitative concepts together, which delineated the likely determinants of the underlying forces perpetuating the practice of FGM/C. Conclusions: While reviews that embed diverse evidence can be systematic, the process is time consuming and challenging. Increased initiatives, including efforts by the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations, and further worked examples are needed to establish a shared and trusted methodology.