Updated methodology for qualitative systematic reviews
New section released in JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis
JBI is delighted to announce the release of the newly revised and updated methodology for conducting qualitative systematic reviews.
The newly revised methodology aims to provide more detailed guidance, enhanced explanations, and additional examples to facilitate the robust synthesis of qualitative evidence for evidence-based healthcare.
JBI Methodology for Systematic Reviews of Qualitative Evidence
JBI’s approach to qualitative evidence synthesis, known as meta-aggregation, has been used for over two decades globally, but recognising the evolution of the field, the JBI Qualitative Systematic Reviews Methodology Group undertook an extensive review to ensure the guidance remains current and clearly articulated.
"The whole chapter has been completely rewritten, and reviewers will see that there are some new sections, and for some of the existing sections, more detailed guidance”, said Dr Kylie Porritt, from the JBI Qualitative Systematic Reviews Methodology Group. Dr Porritt further emphasised the goal of providing reviewers with "a deeper level of understanding of meta-aggregation."
A key unique aspect of JBI’s methodology lies in its pluralistic and inclusive definition of evidence, encompassing all types of qualitative research irrespective of philosophical perspective, methodology, or methods. The meta-aggregative approach does not limit synthesis to a single methodological perspective but instead integrates diverse approaches.
What is meta-aggregation?
As a methodological approach, meta-aggregation provides a systematic and structured framework with guiding principles that inform each stage of the synthesis process, from question formulation to data aggregation. As a method of analysis, it focuses on identifying commonalities, differences, and patterns across studies, followed by an interpretation that respects the original meanings established by the primary researchers. Primary study findings are analysed into categories and then further developed into synthesised findings that address the research question and generate meaningful insights and recommendations to inform practice.
“The essential characteristics of a meta-aggregative review are that the reviewer avoids re-interpretation of included studies, but instead accurately and reliably presents the findings of the included studies as intended by the original authors” (Lockwood et al 2015).
The integration of pragmatism ensures that the synthesised knowledge has practical implications, enabling its application in real-world settings and leading to actionable insights for decision-making, policy development, and practice across various fields.
“While meta-aggregation may not generate new theoretical frameworks, it excels at synthesising existing qualitative evidence to provide comprehensive and detailed descriptive interpretations of a phenomenon to create actionable knowledge for healthcare”, said Dr Porrit.
Equity, diversity and inclusion and reflexivity
The revised methodology, available in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, includes several new sections designed to enhance the rigour and applicability of JBI qualitative systematic reviews. Additions include dedicated sections on equity qualitative evidence synthesis and reflexivity.
“This enhanced and rigorous methodology aims to empower researchers to produce high-quality qualitative systematic reviews that can contribute significantly to a deeper understanding of patient and public experiences, preferences, and the multifaceted factors influencing health outcomes and healthcare delivery.”
This, in turn, facilitates the development of appropriate interventions, addresses care gaps, supports practice change, and ultimately enhances the quality and equity of healthcare. “The revised JBI methodology stands as a robust tool for generating actionable knowledge to inform evidence-based policy and practice”, said Dr Porritt.
Find the revised and updated methodology for qualitative evidence synthesis section in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis.