|Are you interested in contributing to HLWIKI International? contact
To browse other articles on a range of HSL topics, see the A-Z index.
- 16 July 2017
- systematic reviews; knowledge synthesis; concept synthesis; critical interpretive synthesis; integrative review; meta-synthesis; meta ethnography; metastudy; meta-interpretation narrative synthesis; realist review
- See also: rapid review, rapid approach, rapid synthesis, meta-method, meta-evaluation, rapid evidence assessment, expedited review, accelerated review and realist review
See also Evidence-based health care | Expert searching | Hand-searching | Network meta-analysis | Realist reviews in medicine | Systematic reviews
Systematic narrative review methods are a hybrid method of systematic literature searching combined with narrative syntheses and analyses. These reviews are seen to be very useful in scientific research due to the sheer volume of the literature. Traditional and/or narrative review mthods present a range of methodological concerns such as bias. Normally the personal bias of the author/s, bias in the selection of included material, and lack of clear methodology independently irreproducible, are some of the problems that can result in traditional reviews. Also, in a traditional narrative review, there may be a lack of an underlying hypothesis and/or theory presented. A ‘theory’ can refer to everything from grand theories (e.g. Marxism, realism, positivism) to hypotheses (13 levels in realistic evaluations or reviews). Theories often refer to a philosophical orientation (both as ontology and epistemology) or substantive theory in an academic area or program.
"...qualitative research is no longer the poor stepchild of quantitative inquiries. Over the past ten years, qualitative research has come into its own, particularly in terms of wider acceptance in academic and policy communities. At the same time, evidence-based medicine (or EBM—‘a politically correct term’) has given birth to the systematic review with all of its complexities and conundrums. Some, however, have begun to question the systematic review approach and its appropriateness, particularly in the generation of evidence-based policy (Packwood, 2002, p. 268), and its usefulness in reviewing qualitative studies continues to be debated. Nonetheless, because qualitative research is now ignored at peril within the systematic review camp, such reviews have become the proving ground for qualitative work as well as the quantitative study. A mistake is often made, however, in transposing methods best suited to systematic review of quantitative studies into qualitative ones. Check-lists, ‘standards’, matrices, ‘hierarchies of evidence’ and other terminology borrowed from the arsenal of the quantitative camp pepper qualitative ground like so many cluster bombs; therein lies the danger of the loss of much of the ground that qualitative research has won over the past decade or so. It is my belief that this rush to imitate quantitative procedures is producing a kind of ‘mission drift’ in many qualitative ‘systematic’ research reviews." ~ Jones, 2004
"...[narrative review] studies provide informative explanatory analysis “discerning what works for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and how." ~ Pawson, 2005
According to Greenhalgh (2009), "... a meta-narrative embraces a shared set of concepts, theories, and preferred methods (including an explicit or implied set of quality criteria against which good research is judged). It also includes a time dimension: researchers look back (e.g., in editorials or book chapters) to consolidate what has been achieved to date and into the future to identify unanswered questions and find new avenues to explore. Greenhalgh et al have also developed a meta-narrative method of systematically making sense of complex, heterogeneous and conflicting bodies of literature. For anyone interested in using this approach for information science-related research, see the Greenhalgh et al paper from 2005. The essential technique in meta-narrativization is interpretive synthesis; primary sources are read and narratives are used to summarize their key methods and findings. Kuhn’s notion of scientific paradigms are also used to map the meta-narratives (overarching story lines) of research as they unfold in different research traditions thus revealing aspects of how a topic is viewed differently by different groups of scholars over time
The meta-narrative should be regarded not as the unified voice of a community of scholars but as the unfolding of what they are currently disagreeing on (Greenhalgh, 2009).
There are many uses of the term realism. Hammersley distinguishes between ‘naïve realism’ and ‘subtle realism’. Pawson and Tilley termed their construct ‘scientific realism’ (see realistic evaluation for their framing of it.) Holden uses realism in the sense that Hammersley refers to it as ‘naïve realism’, which others might see as positivism. ‘Subtle realism’, critical realism, scientific realism are all constructed to sit between the extremes of positivism and constructivism. That said, a) words have many meanings, b) interpretations vary and evolve, and c) ‘there’s no such thing as final truth or knowledge’ (a realist tenet). Therefore, there isn’t truly a ‘correct’ description except insofar as one should make sure one understands and accurately represents whichever author one is discussing at any one time. Further, there are at least two meanings for ‘stratified reality’. One is of ‘systems within systems’ in that every system comprises sub-systems and is part of larger systems, regardless of whether one is discussing material reality, social reality or ideas. The other is Bhaskar’s philosophical construct of the empirical, the actual and the real. Both are, in my view, necessary to understanding realism. For further discussion, see Pawson, 2005
"...participatory research is the co-construction of research between researchers and people affected by the issues under study (e.g., patients, community members, community health professionals, representatives of community-based organizations)... (Jagosh et al, 2012)
"...a realist review differs from empirically focused qualitative or quantitative methods in a number of ways, including its theory-driven and abductive (informed-intuitive) approach to understanding context, mechanism, and outcome..." (Jagosh et al, 2012)
"...the realist review was originally developed by Pawson (2005) for complex social interventions to explore systematically how contextual factors influence the link between intervention and outcome (summed up in the question "what works, how, for whom, in what circumstances and to what extent?")..." (Greenhalgh et al, 2011)
- This listserv is for researchers interested in learning about realist and meta-narrative reviews. The group hopes to build a community that enables peer-to-peer knowledge construction ultimately leading to a community of members with greater understanding and competence in undertaking these types of reviews. If you would like to join this list, please email Geoff Wong.
- Aoki NJ, Enticott JC, Phillips LE. Searching the literature: four simple steps. Transfusion. 2013 Jan;53(1):14-7.
- Bhasker RA. A realist theory of science. London: Verso, 1997.
- Boote J, Baird W, Sutton A. Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2011 Oct;102(2-3):105–16.
- CADTH Quality Assessment Tools (To Evaluate Research Evidence) Project
- Collier A. Critical realism: an introduction to Roy Bhaskar's philosophy. London: Verso, 1994.
- Colliver JA, Kucera K, Verhulst SJ. Meta-analysis of quasi-experimental research: are systematic narrative reviews indicated?. Medical Education. 2008;42:858–865.
- Cook D, Levinson A, Garside S, Dupras D, Erwin P, Montori V. Internet-based learning in health professionals: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2008;300 (10):1181–96.
- Greenhalgh T, Wong G, Westhorp G, Pawson R. Protocol--realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards (RAMESES). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Aug 16;11:115.
- Greenhalgh T, Potts HW, Wong G. Tensions and paradoxes in electronic patient record research: a systematic literature review using the meta-narrative method. Milbank Q. 2009;87(4):729-88.
- Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ. 2005 Nov 5;331(7524):1064-5.
- Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P. Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2005 Jul;61(2):417-30.
- Hammersley M. Ethnography and realism. Qualitative Researcher’s Companion. 2002.
- Haynes B, Glasziou P, Straus S. Advances in evidence-based information resources for clinical practice. ACP J Club. 2000 Jan-Feb;132(1):A11-4.
- Haynes RB. Loose connections between peer reviewed clinical journals and clinical practice. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:724–8.
- Hernon P, Schwartz C. Leadership: developing a research agenda for academic libraries. Libr Info Sci Res. 2008;30(4):243-249.
- Hutchison BG. Critical appraisal of review articles. Can Fam Physician. 1993;39:1097-102.
- Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, Salsberg J, et al. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Quarterly. 2012;90(2).
- Khangura et al. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews. 2012;1:10.
- Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:485–8.
- Jones K. Mission drift in qualitative research, or moving toward a systematic review of qualitative studies, moving back to a more systematic narrative. Qualitative Report. 2004;9(1):95-112.
- Keown K, Van Eerd D, Irvin E. Stakeholder engagement opportunities in systematic reviews: knowledge transfer for policy and practice. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2008 Spring;28(2):67-72.
- Kreis J, Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Dickersin K. Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Health Expect. 2012 Mar 6
- Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
- Long AF, Godfrey M, Randall T, Brettle A, Grant MJ. HCPRDU Evaluation tool for mixed methods studies , University of Leeds, Nuffield Institute for Health, Leeds, 2002.
- Mishler EG. Models of narrative analysis: a typology. Journal of Narrative and Life History. 1995;5(2):87-123.
- Oxman AD. Checklists for review articles. BMJ. 1994;309:648-51.
- Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users’ guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medline Working Group. JAMA. 1994;272:1367-71.
- Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(11):1271-8.
- Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Singer J, Goldsmith CH, Hutchison BG, Milner RA. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(1):91-8.
- Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Guidelines for reading literature reviews. CMAJ. 1988;138:697–703.
- Packwood A. Evidence-based policy: rhetoric and reality. Social policy and society: a journal of the Social Policy Association. 2002;1(3):267.
- Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Services Research and Policy. 2005;10(S1):21-34.
- Pluye P, Gagnon MP, Griffiths F, Johnson-Lafleur J. A scoring system forappraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative,quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009 Apr;46(4):529-46.
- Porter S, O'Halloran P. The use and limitation of realistic evaluation as atool for evidence-based practice: a critical realist perspective. Nurs Inq. 2012 Mar;19(1):18-28.
- Sirriyeh R, Lawton R, Gardner P, Armitage G. Reviewing studies with diverse designs: the development and evaluation of a new tool. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18:746–752.
- Smith E, Donovan S, Beresford P, Manthorpe J, Brearley S, Sitzia J, Ross F. Getting ready for user involvement in a systematic review. Health Expect. 2009 Jun;12(2):197-208.
- Sridharan S, Nakaima A. Towards an evidence base of theory-driven evaluations: some questions for proponents of theory-driven evaluation. Evaluation. July 2012 18:378-395.
- Williamson JW, German PS, Weiss R. Health science information management and continuing education of physicians. Ann Intern Med. 1989;110:151–60.
- Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Pawson R. Internet-based medical education: a realist review of what works, for whom and in what circumstances. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:12.
- Woolf SH. Review articles and disclosure of methods. Am J Prev Med. 1991;7:53-4.