Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence

By Quan Nha Hong, Pierre Pluye, Mathieu Bujold, M. Wassef. Systematic Reviews, 2017

614 citations recorded by the source corpus.

BackgroundSystematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence can provide a rich understanding of complex phenomena. This type of review is increasingly popular, has been used to provide a landscape of existing knowledge, and addresses the types of questions not usually covered in reviews relying solely on either quantitative or qualitative evidence. Although several typologies of synthesis designs have been developed, none have been tested on a large sample of reviews. The aim of this review of reviews was to identify and develop a typology of synthesis designs and methods that have been used and to propose strategies for synthesizing qualitative and quantitative evidence.MethodsA review of systematic reviews combining qualitative and quantitative evidence was performed. Six databases were searched from inception to December 2014. Reviews were included if they were systematic reviews combining qualitative and quantitative evidence. The included reviews were analyzed according to three concepts of synthesis processes: (a) synthesis methods, (b) sequence of data synthesis, and (c) integration of data and synthesis results.ResultsA total of 459 reviews were included. The analysis of this literature highlighted a lack of transparency in reporting how evidence was synthesized and a lack of consistency in the terminology used. Two main types of synthesis designs were identified: convergent and sequential synthesis designs. Within the convergent synthesis design, three subtypes were found: (a) data-based convergent synthesis design, where qualitative and quantitative evidence is analyzed together using the same synthesis method, (b) results-based convergent synthesis design, where qualitative and quantitative evidence is analyzed separately using different synthesis methods and results of both syntheses are integrated during a final synthesis, and (c) parallel-results convergent synthesis design consisting of independent syntheses of qualitative and quantitative evidence and an interpretation of the results in the discussion.ConclusionsPerforming systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence is challenging because of the multiple synthesis options. The findings provide guidance on how to combine qualitative and quantitative evidence. Also, recommendations are made to improve the conducting and reporting of this type of review.

Subfields: Education, General Health Professions, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7d52e90b26094da10fe066037dcdcf7e8742aea0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

In General Health Professions

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study. (2019, methodology): “The first was a review of systematic mixed studies reviews that was carried out in 2015 [22].”
Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) (2018, methodology): “The first label refers to combining qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed methods studies, while the second one can also refer to combining qualitative and quantitative methods (such as thematic synthesis and meta‐analysis).(7) Hereinafter, we will use the term “systematic mixed studies reviews” t”
Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews (2020, positive): “Since the introduction of this guidance, there have been significant developments in the area of mixed methods synthesis.(13,15,17,23-25) As such, the methodology group recognized the need to revise the guidance to ensure it was accurate and aligned with the current evidence base.”