Search

Framework synthesis is one systematic review method employed to address health care practice and policy. Adapted from framework analysis methods, it has been used increasingly, using both qualitative and mixed-method systematic review methods. This article demonstrates a spectrum of approaches to framework synthesis that are dependent on the extent to which theory is tentative, emergent, refined, or established; and that stakeholder involvement may help to understand the topic's complexity where theory is more nascent. The choice of approach depends on the degree of match with existing theories and, in the absence of existing theory, the scale and heterogeneity of the literature to be managed.

Trials evaluating the same interventions rarely measure or report identical outcomes. This limits the possibility of aggregating effect sizes across studies to generate high-quality evidence through systematic reviews and meta-analyses. To address this problem, core outcome sets (COS) establish agreed sets of outcomes to be used in all future trials. When developing COS, potential outcome domains are identified by systematically reviewing the outcomes of trials, and increasingly, through primary qualitative research exploring the experiences of key stakeholders, with relevant outcome domains subsequently determined through transdisciplinary consensus development. However, the primary qualitative component can be time consuming with unclear impact. We aimed to examine the potential added value of a qualitative systematic review alongside a quantitative systematic review of trial outcomes to inform COS development in neonatal care using case analysis methods. We compared the methods and findings of a scoping review of neonatal trial outcomes and a scoping review of qualitative research on parents', patients', and professional caregivers' perspectives of neonatal care. Together, these identified a wider range and greater depth of health and social outcome domains, some unique to each review, which were incorporated into the subsequent Delphi process and informed the final set of core outcome domains. Qualitative scoping reviews of participant perspectives research, used in conjunction with quantitative scoping reviews of trials, could identify more outcome domains for consideration and could provide greater depth of understanding to inform stakeholder group discussion in COS development. This is an innovation in the application of research synthesis methods.

Background: When literature searching for systematic reviews, it is good practice to search widely across different information sources. Little is known about the contributions of different publication formats (e.g. journal article and book chapter) and sources, especially for studies of people's views. Method: Studies from four reviews spanning three public health areas (active transport, motherhood and obesity) were analysed in terms of publication formats and the information sources they were identified from. They comprised of 229 studies exploring people's perceptions, beliefs and experiences ("views studies") and were largely qualitative. Results: Although most (61%) research studies were published within journals, nearly a third (29%) were published as research reports and 5% were published in books. The remainder consisted of theses, conference papers and raw datasets. Two-thirds of studies (66%) were located in a total of 19 bibliographic databases, and 15 databases provided studies that were not identified elsewhere. PubMed was a good source for all reviews. Supplementary information sources were important for identifying studies in all publication formats. Conclusions: Undertaking sensitive searches across a range of information sources is essential for locating views studies in all publication formats. We discuss some benefits and challenges of utilising different information sources.

Driven by necessity in our own complex review, we developed alternative systematic ways of identifying relevant evidence where the key concepts are generally not focal to the primary studies' aims and are found across multiple disciplines--that is, hard-to-detect evidence. Specifically, we sought to identify evidence on community engagement in public health interventions that aim to reduce health inequalities. Our initial search strategy used text mining to identify synonyms for the concept "community engagement". We conducted a systematic search for reviews on public health interventions, supplemented by searches of trials databases. We then used information in the reviews' evidence tables to gather more information about the included studies than was evident in the primary studies' own titles or abstracts. We identified 319 primary studies cited in reviews after full-text screening. In this paper, we retrospectively reflect on the challenges and benefits of the approach taken. We estimate that more than a quarter of the studies that were identified would have been missed by typical searching and screening methods. This identification strategy was highly effective and could be useful for reviews of broad research questions, or where the key concepts are unlikely to be the main focus of primary research.