Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in sytematic reviews

Jennie Popay, Helen M. Roberts, Amanda Sowden, Mark Petticrew, Lisa Arai, Mark Rodgers, Nicky Britten

    Research output: Book/ReportOther reportResearch

    Abstract

    Do domestic smoke alarms save lives? Can youn
    g offenders be 'scared straight' through tough penal
    measures? What factors should
    be considered when designing and implementing a multi-sectoral
    injury prevention programme in a local area? Maki
    ng sense of large bodies of evidence drawn from
    research using a range of methods is a challenge.
    Ensuring that the product of
    this synthesis process
    can be trusted is important for policy makers, for prac
    titioners and for the people research is intended
    to benefit. There are a number of ways in which research evidence can be brought together to give
    an overall picture of current knowl
    edge that can be used to inform policy and practice decisions.
    However, the trustworthiness of some of these methods remains problematic.
    The guidance we set out here focuses on a particular approach -
    narrative synthesis.
    Variants of
    this approach are widely used in work on evidence
    synthesis, including Cochr
    ane reviews, but there is
    currently no consensus on the constituent element
    s of narrative synthesis and the conditions for
    establishing trustworthiness – notably a systematic
    and transparent approach to the synthesis
    process with safeguards in place to avoid bias resulting from the undue emphasis on one study
    relative to another – are frequently absent. This
    guidance therefore aims to contribute to improving
    the quality of narrative approac
    hes to evidence synthesis
    Original languageEnglish
    Place of PublicationLondon
    PublisherInstitute for Health Research
    Number of pages92
    Publication statusPublished - Apr 2006

    Fingerprint

    Research
    Administrative Personnel
    Smoke
    Wounds and Injuries

    Cite this

    Popay, J., Roberts, H. M., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., & Britten, N. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in sytematic reviews. London: Institute for Health Research.
    Popay, Jennie ; Roberts, Helen M. ; Sowden, Amanda ; Petticrew, Mark ; Arai, Lisa ; Rodgers, Mark ; Britten, Nicky. / Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in sytematic reviews. London : Institute for Health Research, 2006. 92 p.
    @book{8b945343385c4a5a90301eac3afe55c7,
    title = "Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in sytematic reviews",
    abstract = "Do domestic smoke alarms save lives? Can young offenders be 'scared straight' through tough penal measures? What factors should be considered when designing and implementing a multi-sectoral injury prevention programme in a local area? Making sense of large bodies of evidence drawn from research using a range of methods is a challenge. Ensuring that the product of this synthesis process can be trusted is important for policy makers, for practitioners and for the people research is intended to benefit. There are a number of ways in which research evidence can be brought together to give an overall picture of current knowledge that can be used to inform policy and practice decisions. However, the trustworthiness of some of these methods remains problematic. The guidance we set out here focuses on a particular approach - narrative synthesis. Variants ofthis approach are widely used in work on evidence synthesis, including Cochrane reviews, but there is currently no consensus on the constituent elements of narrative synthesis and the conditions for establishing trustworthiness – notably a systematic and transparent approach to the synthesis process with safeguards in place to avoid bias resulting from the undue emphasis on one study relative to another – are frequently absent. This guidance therefore aims to contribute to improving the quality of narrative approaches to evidence synthesis",
    author = "Jennie Popay and Roberts, {Helen M.} and Amanda Sowden and Mark Petticrew and Lisa Arai and Mark Rodgers and Nicky Britten",
    year = "2006",
    month = "4",
    language = "English",
    publisher = "Institute for Health Research",

    }

    Popay, J, Roberts, HM, Sowden, A, Petticrew, M, Arai, L, Rodgers, M & Britten, N 2006, Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in sytematic reviews. Institute for Health Research, London.

    Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in sytematic reviews. / Popay, Jennie; Roberts, Helen M.; Sowden, Amanda; Petticrew, Mark; Arai, Lisa; Rodgers, Mark; Britten, Nicky.

    London : Institute for Health Research, 2006. 92 p.

    Research output: Book/ReportOther reportResearch

    TY - BOOK

    T1 - Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in sytematic reviews

    AU - Popay, Jennie

    AU - Roberts, Helen M.

    AU - Sowden, Amanda

    AU - Petticrew, Mark

    AU - Arai, Lisa

    AU - Rodgers, Mark

    AU - Britten, Nicky

    PY - 2006/4

    Y1 - 2006/4

    N2 - Do domestic smoke alarms save lives? Can young offenders be 'scared straight' through tough penal measures? What factors should be considered when designing and implementing a multi-sectoral injury prevention programme in a local area? Making sense of large bodies of evidence drawn from research using a range of methods is a challenge. Ensuring that the product of this synthesis process can be trusted is important for policy makers, for practitioners and for the people research is intended to benefit. There are a number of ways in which research evidence can be brought together to give an overall picture of current knowledge that can be used to inform policy and practice decisions. However, the trustworthiness of some of these methods remains problematic. The guidance we set out here focuses on a particular approach - narrative synthesis. Variants ofthis approach are widely used in work on evidence synthesis, including Cochrane reviews, but there is currently no consensus on the constituent elements of narrative synthesis and the conditions for establishing trustworthiness – notably a systematic and transparent approach to the synthesis process with safeguards in place to avoid bias resulting from the undue emphasis on one study relative to another – are frequently absent. This guidance therefore aims to contribute to improving the quality of narrative approaches to evidence synthesis

    AB - Do domestic smoke alarms save lives? Can young offenders be 'scared straight' through tough penal measures? What factors should be considered when designing and implementing a multi-sectoral injury prevention programme in a local area? Making sense of large bodies of evidence drawn from research using a range of methods is a challenge. Ensuring that the product of this synthesis process can be trusted is important for policy makers, for practitioners and for the people research is intended to benefit. There are a number of ways in which research evidence can be brought together to give an overall picture of current knowledge that can be used to inform policy and practice decisions. However, the trustworthiness of some of these methods remains problematic. The guidance we set out here focuses on a particular approach - narrative synthesis. Variants ofthis approach are widely used in work on evidence synthesis, including Cochrane reviews, but there is currently no consensus on the constituent elements of narrative synthesis and the conditions for establishing trustworthiness – notably a systematic and transparent approach to the synthesis process with safeguards in place to avoid bias resulting from the undue emphasis on one study relative to another – are frequently absent. This guidance therefore aims to contribute to improving the quality of narrative approaches to evidence synthesis

    M3 - Other report

    BT - Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in sytematic reviews

    PB - Institute for Health Research

    CY - London

    ER -

    Popay J, Roberts HM, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in sytematic reviews. London: Institute for Health Research, 2006. 92 p.