Title |
What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2012
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-114 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Monika Kastner, Andrea C Tricco, Charlene Soobiah, Erin Lillie, Laure Perrier, Tanya Horsley, Vivian Welch, Elise Cogo, Jesmin Antony, Sharon E Straus |
Abstract |
A knowledge synthesis attempts to summarize all pertinent studies on a specific question, can improve the understanding of inconsistencies in diverse evidence, and can identify gaps in research evidence to define future research agendas. Knowledge synthesis activities in healthcare have largely focused on systematic reviews of interventions. However, a wider range of synthesis methods has emerged in the last decade addressing different types of questions (e.g., realist synthesis to explore mediating mechanisms and moderators of interventions). Many different knowledge synthesis methods exist in the literature across multiple disciplines, but locating these, particularly for qualitative research, present challenges. There is a need for a comprehensive manual for synthesis methods (quantitative/qualitative or mixed), outlining how these methods are related, and how to match the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer a research question. The objectives of this scoping review are to: 1) conduct a systematic search of the literature for knowledge synthesis methods across multi-disciplinary fields; 2) compare and contrast the different knowledge synthesis methods; and, 3) map out the specific steps to conducting the knowledge syntheses to inform the development of a knowledge synthesis methods manual/tool. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Thailand | 1 | 13% |
Canada | 1 | 13% |
Germany | 1 | 13% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
Scientists | 3 | 38% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 10 | 1% |
United Kingdom | 8 | <1% |
United States | 5 | <1% |
Chile | 2 | <1% |
Sweden | 2 | <1% |
Mexico | 2 | <1% |
Bangladesh | 1 | <1% |
South Africa | 1 | <1% |
Czechia | 1 | <1% |
Other | 5 | <1% |
Unknown | 866 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 170 | 19% |
Student > Master | 156 | 17% |
Researcher | 111 | 12% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 50 | 6% |
Student > Bachelor | 41 | 5% |
Other | 180 | 20% |
Unknown | 195 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 154 | 17% |
Social Sciences | 135 | 15% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 116 | 13% |
Psychology | 58 | 6% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 39 | 4% |
Other | 169 | 19% |
Unknown | 232 | 26% |