Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The systematic synthesis of qualitative evidence is a recent development of systematic review methodology. Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence need to subscribe to the same methodological rigour and transparency that characterises reviews of quantitative evidence. As a result, reviewers should assess the sensitivity of the findings of any qualitative evidence synthesis to a priori defined variables.
Objectives: To report on the methodological insights gained from a sensitivity analysis conducted as part of a qualitative evidence synthesis in a mixed-methods systematic review.
Methods: We applied thematic synthesis to synthesise the findings from qualitative research in a mixed-methods systematic review. Prior to extracting themes from the primary research evidence, each study was subjected to a critical appraisal assessing the reliability of the study’s findings. After configuring findings in the thematic synthesis, the results from the synthesis were subjected to a sensitivity analysis. We assessed whether the synthesis results were sensitive to: 1) the exclusion of studies after the application of the critical appraisal tool; 2) the applied qualitative research methodologies; and 3) the inclusion of individual studies yielding a larger than average number of themes.
Results: We found that the results of the synthesis were sensitive to the inclusion of individual studies that yielded a larger than average number of themes. We also established that the exclusion of studies after the application of the critical appraisal tool would have generated a number of themes not identified in the included evidence.
Conclusions: To ensure the rigour and transparency of qualitative evidence syntheses, both a critical appraisal of the qualitative primary evidence, as well as a sensitivity analysis of the synthesis results, using a priori defined variables are required.
Objectives: To report on the methodological insights gained from a sensitivity analysis conducted as part of a qualitative evidence synthesis in a mixed-methods systematic review.
Methods: We applied thematic synthesis to synthesise the findings from qualitative research in a mixed-methods systematic review. Prior to extracting themes from the primary research evidence, each study was subjected to a critical appraisal assessing the reliability of the study’s findings. After configuring findings in the thematic synthesis, the results from the synthesis were subjected to a sensitivity analysis. We assessed whether the synthesis results were sensitive to: 1) the exclusion of studies after the application of the critical appraisal tool; 2) the applied qualitative research methodologies; and 3) the inclusion of individual studies yielding a larger than average number of themes.
Results: We found that the results of the synthesis were sensitive to the inclusion of individual studies that yielded a larger than average number of themes. We also established that the exclusion of studies after the application of the critical appraisal tool would have generated a number of themes not identified in the included evidence.
Conclusions: To ensure the rigour and transparency of qualitative evidence syntheses, both a critical appraisal of the qualitative primary evidence, as well as a sensitivity analysis of the synthesis results, using a priori defined variables are required.