CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 357Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsInnovations in Medical Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education

Bearman, Margaret, Dawson, Phillip·2013·Medical Education
DOI 10.1111/medu.12092
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: Formal qualitative synthesis is the process of pooling qualitative and mixed-method research data, and then drawing conclusions regarding the collective meaning of the research. Qualitative synthesis is regularly used within systematic reviews in the health professions literature, although such use has been heavily debated in the general literature. This controversy arises in part from the inherent tensions found when generalisations are derived from in-depth studies that are heavily context-dependent. METHODS: We explore three representative qualitative synthesis methodologies: thematic analysis; meta-ethnography, and realist synthesis. These can be understood across two dimensions: integrative to interpretative, and idealist to realist. Three examples are used to illustrate the relative strengths and limitations of these approaches. DISCUSSION: Against a backdrop of controversy and diverse methodologies, readers must take a critical stand when reading literature reviews that use qualitative synthesis to derive their findings. We argue that notions of qualitative rigour such as transparency and acknowledgment of the researchers' stance should be applied to qualitative synthesis.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/medu.12092

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Cochrane Collaboration, 2012, Cochrane Reviews
  2. Pope C, 2007, Synthesizing Qualitative and Quantitative Health Evidence, 78

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 357

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bearman, M., & Dawson, P.
Affiliations
Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Bearman, Margaret
ORCID
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-02-08
Volume
47
Issue
3
Pages
252-260
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
DOI
10.1111/medu.12092
OpenAlex
W1591099317
Cited by
357
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 12
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
qualitative evidence synthesis, systematic reviews, health professions education, meta-ethnography, realist synthesis, thematic analysis, transparency, researcher positionality
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Anthropology, Cultural, Education, Professional, Health Occupations, Humans, Judgment, Research Personnel, Meta-Analysis as Topic, MEDLINE, Qualitative Research

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