A decade of metasynthesis research in health sciences: A meta-method study

Abstract

The overall aim of this study was to analyze the methods applied in previous metasynthesis research and to inform future researchers of epistemological and methodological issues based on this analysis. Meta-method analysis was applied to a decade of 45 published metasynthesis studies that pertain to nursing and allied health studies. The findings show that the metasynthesis research can be classified into three areas: (1) health, illness and suffering, (2) care and support, and (3) parenting, newborn and childcare. Meta ethnography dominates the research area. Metastudy, metasummary, qualitative metasynthesis, and grounded formal theory are emerging methods. The metasynthesis studies suffer from modifications without explications, use of secondary method references, missing sample and search data and differences in the type of findings and the meta-concepts depicting the findings. The worth of metasynthesis research is questioned when the core ideas of qualitative meta studies, theoretical and/or methodological development (''synthesis'') combined with the potential of going beyond and behind the studies (''meta''), is missing. Metasynthesis research requires knowledge in both the substance and the various qualitative methods, and systematic attendance to the method accompanied by the openness and the creativity of a qualitative approach. Conclusions and recommendations are presented as epistemological reflections and a guide for future metasynthesis research in health sciences.

The pregnant male: a metasynthesis of first-time fathers’ experiences of pregnancy

“…Other criticisms levelled at the metasynthesis approach include the lack of transparency employed in the stages of the synthesis process (Bondas & Hall, 2007), and interpretations that are far removed from the participants' lived experiences (Chin et al, 2011). In contrast, other researchers have suggested that the metasynthesis approach helps to open up new avenues of meaning and understanding in familiar and unfamiliar areas (Walsh & Downe, 2005), demonstrated by its successful use in various areas that have used studies from differing epistemological backgrounds (Chin et al, 2011;Goodman, 2004).…”

“…According to Bondas and Hall (2007), it is the most widely used and developed method for synthesising qualitative data and has been used in a wide variety of health-related research areas (e.g., Beck, 2002). This approach utilises a systematic, transparent and scientific theoretical framework from which the metasynthesis is conducted.…”

Competencias digitales ante la irrupción de la Cuarta Revolución Industrial

“…En primera instancia recurrimos a un metaanálisis cualitativo (Bondas & Hall, 2007) (Walsh & Downe, 2005), con el fin de efectuar una amplia revisión de la literatura que permitiese una comprensión del objeto de estudio desde diversas perspectivas y métodos, y a una reinterpretación a la luz de los datos recogidos. En el apartado cuantitativo, que posee un apreciable peso en el conjunto de la investigación, nos hemos provisto de la encuesta sociológica descriptiva, diseñada en función de los indicadores generales establecidos por los principales estudios e informes que vienen elaborándose a nivel nacional e internacional en torno a la investigación y evaluación de los indicadores del seguimiento de la Sociedad de la Información (Ontsi, 2017) (AIMC, 2017) (Fundación Telefónica, 2016) (OECD, 2011), adaptados a la especificidad de los individuos que conforman el cuerpo de la muestra, alumnos y alumnas de primer y segundo ciclo de los grados de comunicación audiovisual y publicidad.…”

Integration of qualitative evidence: towards construction of academic knowledge in social science and professional fields

“…Such reviews have, it is asserted, failed to provide a greater understanding of existing evidence. Many, ourselves included, have been dissatisfied with the more refined approach of systematic reviews as well (Booth, 2006;Bondas and Hall, 2007;Major and Savin-Baden, 2010;Savin-Baden et al, 2008). Such reviews traditionally have focused on analysing evidence from one kind of study only and have thus limited the kinds of questions that can be asked.…”