Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,042

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review

Open access
Barnett-Page, Elaine, Thomas, James·2009·BMC Medical Research Methodology
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-9-59
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In recent years, a growing number of methods for synthesising qualitative research have emerged, particularly in relation to health-related research. There is a need for both researchers and commissioners to be able to distinguish between these methods and to select which method is the most appropriate to their situation. DISCUSSION: A number of methodological and conceptual links between these methods were identified and explored, while contrasting epistemological positions explained differences in approaches to issues such as quality assessment and extent of iteration. Methods broadly fall into 'realist' or 'idealist' epistemologies, which partly accounts for these differences. SUMMARY: Methods for qualitative synthesis vary across a range of dimensions. Commissioners of qualitative syntheses might wish to consider the kind of product they want and select their method - or type of method - accordingly.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2288-9-59

Cites

7 of 7 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

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

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Dixon-Woods M, Agarwhal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A: Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Pol. 2005, 10 (1): 45-53b. 10.1258/1355819052801804. · doi:10.1258/1355819052801804 · Paper page
  2. Barbour RS, Barbour M: Evaluating and synthesizing qualitative research: the need to develop a distinctive approach. J Eval Clin Pract. 2003, 9 (2): 179-186. 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00371.x. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Mays N, Pope C, Popay J: Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Pol. 2005, 10 (Suppl 1): 6-20. 10.1258/1355819054308576. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones DR, Miller T, Shaw RL, Smith J, Sutton A, Young B: How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual Res. 2006, 6: 27-44. 10.1177/1468794106058867. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Pope C, Mays N, Popay J: Synthesizing Qualitative and Quantitative Health Evidence: a Guide to Methods. 2007, Maidenhead: Open University Press
  6. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Systematic Reviews. CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. 2008, York: CRD
  7. Noblit GW, Hare RD: Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. 1988, London: Sage · DOI · Paper page
  8. Strike K, Posner G: Types of synthesis and their criteria. Knowledge Structure and Use. Edited by: Ward S, Reed L. 1983, Philadelphia: Temple University Press
  9. Turner S: Sociological Explanation as Translation. 1980, New York: Cambridge University Press
  10. Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R: Using meta-ethnography to synthesis qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res. 2002, 7: 209-15. 10.1258/135581902320432732. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, Britten N, Pill R, Morgan M, Donovan J: Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med. 2003, 65: 671-84. 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00064-3. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Schutz A: Collected Paper. 1962, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1:
  13. Sandelowski M, Barroso J: Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. 2007, New York: Springer Publishing Company
  14. Kearney MH: Enduring love: a grounded formal theory of women's experience of domestic violence. Research Nurs Health. 2001, 24: 270-82. 10.1002/nur.1029. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Eaves YD: A synthesis technique for grounded theory data analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2001, 35: 654-63. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01897.x. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Finfgeld D: Courage as a process of pushing beyond the struggle. Qual Health Res. 1999, 9: 803-814. 10.1177/104973299129122298. · DOI
  17. Glaser BG, Strauss AL: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. 1967, New York: Aldine De Gruyter
  18. Strauss AL, Corbin J: Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. 1990, Newbury Park, CA: Sage
  19. Strauss AL, Corbin J: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 1998, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  20. Charmaz K: The grounded theory method: an explication and interpretation. Contemporary Field Research: A Collection of Readings. Edited by: Emerson RM. 1983, Waveland Press: Prospect Heights, IL, 109-126.
  21. Chesler MA: Professionals' Views of the Dangers of Self-Help Groups: Explicating a Grounded Theoretical Approach. 1987, [Michigan]: Department of Sociology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbour Centre for Research on Social Organisation, Working Paper Series
  22. Kearney MH: Ready-to-wear: discovering grounded formal theory. Res Nurs Health. 1988, 21: 179-186. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199804)21:2<179::AID-NUR8>3.0.CO;2-G. · DOI
  23. Lucas PJ, Arai L, Baird , Law C, Roberts HM: Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Meth. 2007, 7 (4): · DOI · Paper page
  24. Zhao S: Metatheory, metamethod, meta-data-analysis: what, why and how?. Sociol Perspect. 1991, 34: 377-390. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Ritzer G: Metatheorizing in Sociology. 1991, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books
  26. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O, Peacock R: Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2005, 61: 417-30. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Kuhn TS: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 1962, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
  28. Gough D: Weight of evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Applied and Practice-based Research. Edited by: Furlong J, Oancea A. 2007, Special Edition of Research Papers in Education, 22 (2): 213-228. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Webb EJ, Campbell DT, Schwartz RD, Sechrest L: Unobtrusive Measures. 1966, Chicago: Rand McNally
  30. Denzin NK: The Research Act: a Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. 1978, New York: McGraw-Hill
  31. Brunton G, Oliver S, Oliver K, Lorenc T: A Synthesis of Research Addressing Children's, Young People's and Parents' Views of Walking and Cycling for Transport. 2006, London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London
  32. Oliver S, Rees R, Clarke-Jones L, Milne R, Oakley A, Gabbay J, Stein K, Buchanan P, Gyte G: A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expect. 2008, 11: 72-84. 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00476.x. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Ritchie J, Spencer L: Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. Analysing Qualitative Data. Edited by: Bryman A, Burgess R. 1993, London: Routledge, 173-194.
  34. Miles M, Huberman A: Qualitative Data Analysis. 1984, London: Sage
  35. Evans D, Fitzgerald M: Reasons for physically restraining patients and residents: a systematic review and content analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2002, 39: 739-743. 10.1016/S0020-7489(02)00015-9. · DOI
  36. Suikkala A, Leino-Kilpi H: Nursing student-patient relationships: a review of the literature from 1984–1998. J Adv Nurs. 2000, 33: 42-50. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01636.x. · DOI
  37. Weed M: 'Meta-interpretation': a method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research. Forum: Qual Soc Res. 2005, 6: Art 37-
  38. Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L: Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: a Framework for Assessing Research Evidence. 2003, London: Government Chief Social Researcher's Office
  39. Paterson BL: Coming out as ill: understanding self-disclosure in chronic illness from a meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Reviewing Research Evidence for Nursing Practice. Edited by: Webb C, Roe B. 2007, [Oxford]: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 73-83. · DOI

Cited by

See all 2,042

Metadata

Authors
Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J.
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2009-08-11
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
59-59
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1471-2288-9-59
OpenAlex
W2146917737
Cited by
2,042
References
7
FWCI
37.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 (tdm)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2288-9-59
The paper
Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-59

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.