This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Dixon-Woods, M. Articles by Young, B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective

University of Leicester, md11{at}le.ac.uk

Sheila Bonas

University of Leicester

Andrew Booth

University of Sheffield

David R. Jones

University of Leicester

Tina Miller

Oxford Brookes University

Alex J. Sutton

University of Leicester

Rachel L. Shaw

Aston University

Jonathan A. Smith

University of London

Bridget Young

University of Liverpool

Systematic review has developed as a specific methodology for searching for, appraising and synthesizing findings of primary studies, and has rapidly become a cornerstone of the evidence-based practice and policy movement. Qualitative research has traditionally been excluded from systematic reviews, and much effort is now being invested in resolving the daunting methodological and epistemological challenges associated with trying to move towards more inclusive forms of review. We describe our experiences, as a very diverse multidisciplinary group, in attempting to incorporate qualitative research in a systematic review of support for breastfeeding. We show how every stage of the review process, from asking the review question through to searching for and sampling the evidence, appraising the evidence and producing a synthesis, provoked profound questions about whether a review that includes qualitative research can remain consistent with the frame offered by current systematic review methodology. We conclude that more debate and dialogue between the different communities that wish to develop review methodology is needed, and that attempts to impose dominant views about the appropriate means of conducting reviews of qualitative research should be resisted so that innovation can be fostered.

Key Words: evidence-based policy and practice • quality appraisal • quantitative and qualitative synthesis • searching techniques • systematic reviews

Qualitative Research, Vol. 6, No. 1, 27-44 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1468794106058867


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. K. Denzin The elephant in the living room: or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence Qualitative Research, April 1, 2009; 9(2): 139 - 160. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Peterson Review Essay: Margaret Sandelowski and Julie Barroso, Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 2006. 284 pp. ISBN 0--8261--5694--0 (pbk) Qualitative Social Work, September 1, 2008; 7(3): 386 - 391. [PDF]

				K. Hannes, L. Claes, and The Belgian Campbell Group Learn to Read and Write Systematic Reviews: The Belgian Campbell Group Research on Social Work Practice, November 1, 2007; 17(6): 748 - 753. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Dixon-Woods, A. Booth, and A. J. Sutton Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports Qualitative Research, August 1, 2007; 7(3): 375 - 422. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. J.C. Carr Andromeda's galaxy Journal of Research in Nursing, May 1, 2006; 11(3): 219 - 221. [PDF]