CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 196Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceMethodologies in Health Research and Practice

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable?

Booth, Andrew, Carroll, Christopher·2015·Health Information & Libraries Journal
DOI 10.1111/hir.12108
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: In recognising the potential value of theory in understanding how interventions work comes a challenge – how to make identification of theory less haphazard? Objectives: To explore the feasibility of systematic identification of theory. Method: We searched PubMed for published reviews (1998–2012) that had explicitly sought to identify theory. Systematic searching may be characterised by a structured question, methodological filters and an itemised search procedure. We constructed a template (BeHEMoTh – Behaviour of interest; Health context; Exclusions; Models or Theories) for use when systematically identifying theory. The authors tested the template within two systematic reviews. Results: Of 34 systematic reviews, only 12 reviews (35%) reported a method for identifying theory. Nineteen did not specify how they identified studies containing theory. Data were unavailable for three reviews. Candidate terms include concept(s)/conceptual, framework(s), model(s), and theory/theories/theoretical. Information professionals must overcome inadequate reporting and the use of theory out of context. The review team faces an additional concern in lack of ‘theory fidelity’. Conclusions: Based on experience with two systematic reviews, the BeHEMoTh template and procedure offers a feasible and useful approach for identification of theory. Applications include realist synthesis, framework synthesis or review of complex interventions. The procedure requires rigorous evaluation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/hir.12108

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 52 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Fishwick D. McGregor M. Drury M. Webster J. Rick J. Carroll C.&Powell S.BOHRF smoking cessation review. HuSU/12/17. Buxton: Health & Safety Laboratory;2012. [http://www.bohrf.org.uk/downloads/BOHRF_Smoking_Cessation_Review-April%202012.pdf]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–195 of 195

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Booth, A., & Carroll, C.
Affiliations
University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Booth, Andrew
ORCID
Venue
Health Information & Libraries Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-06-11
Volume
32
Issue
3
Pages
220-235
ISSN
  • 1471-1834 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-1842
DOI
10.1111/hir.12108
OpenAlex
W1935977214
Cited by
196
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Health Information & Libraries Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
Keywords
systematic reviews, search strategy design, realist synthesis, framework synthesis, complex interventions, reporting quality
MeSH terms
Abstracting and Indexing, Humans, Review Literature as Topic, Databases, Bibliographic, Information Storage and Retrieval

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review