CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 654Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsHealth Policy Implementation Science

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

“Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method

Open access
Carroll, Christopher, Booth, Andrew, Leaviss, Joanna, Rick, Jo·2013·BMC Medical Research Methodology
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-13-37PMC PMC3618126
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Following publication of the first worked example of the "best fit" method of evidence synthesis for the systematic review of qualitative evidence in this journal, the originators of the method identified a need to specify more fully some aspects of this particular derivative of framework synthesis. METHODS AND RESULTS: We therefore present a second such worked example in which all techniques are defined and explained, and their appropriateness is assessed. Specified features of the method include the development of new techniques to identify theories in a systematic manner; the creation of an a priori framework for the synthesis; and the "testing" of the synthesis. An innovative combination of existing methods of quality assessment, analysis and synthesis is used to complete the process. This second worked example was a qualitative evidence synthesis of employees' views of workplace smoking cessation interventions, in which the "best fit" method was found to be practical and fit for purpose. CONCLUSIONS: The method is suited to producing context-specific conceptual models for describing or explaining the decision-making and health behaviours of patients and other groups. It offers a pragmatic means of conducting rapid qualitative evidence synthesis and generating programme theories relating to intervention effectiveness, which might be of relevance both to researchers and policy-makers.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2288-13-37

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Qualitative evidence synthesis using “Best-fit” framework synthesis.
Figure 1 Qualitative evidence synthesis using “Best-fit” framework synthesis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 PRISMA flowchart of frameworks, models and theories search.
Figure 2 PRISMA flowchart of frameworks, models and theories search.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 PRISMA flowchart of primary research studies search.
Figure 3 PRISMA flowchart of primary research studies search.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 From the models to the framework of themes.
Figure 4 From the models to the framework of themes.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Conceptual model describing the nature of employees’ views of workplace smoking cessation or restriction interventions.
Figure 5 Conceptual model describing the nature of employees’ views of workplace smoking cessation or restriction interventions.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Worked example.
Figure 6 Worked example.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Garside R, Pearson M, Moxham T, Anderson R: Providing Public Information to Prevent Skin Cancer. Review 2. Barriers and Facilitators to Conveying Information to Prevent First Occurrence of Skin Cancer: a Systematic Review of Qualitative Research. 2009, London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
  2. Fishwick D, McGregor M, Drury M, Webster J, Rick J, Carroll C: BOHRF smoking cessation review. HuSU/12/17. Health & Safety Laboratory. 2012, Available at: http://www.bohrf.org.uk/downloads/BOHRF_Smoking_Cessation_Review-April%202012.pdf
  3. Grayson L, Gomersall A: A Difficult Business: Finding the Evidence for Social Science Reviews. Working Paper 19. 2003, London: Economic and Social Research Council, UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 654

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Carroll, C., Booth, A., Leaviss, J., & Rick, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Carroll, Christopher
ORCID
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-03-13
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
37-37
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1471-2288-13-37
PMC
PMC3618126
OpenAlex
W2168814190
Cited by
649
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 100 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 93 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
British Occupational Health Research Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
framework synthesis, qualitative evidence synthesis, program theory, intervention effectiveness, conceptual model, health behavior
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Health Promotion, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Research Design, Health Behavior, Evidence-Based Medicine, Benchmarking, 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