Cargando…

“Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method

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 framewor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Carroll, Christopher, Booth, Andrew, Leaviss, Joanna, Rick, Jo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3618126/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23497061
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-37
_version_ 1782265362510774272
author Carroll, Christopher
Booth, Andrew
Leaviss, Joanna
Rick, Jo
author_facet Carroll, Christopher
Booth, Andrew
Leaviss, Joanna
Rick, Jo
author_sort Carroll, Christopher
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3618126
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36181262013-04-06 “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method Carroll, Christopher Booth, Andrew Leaviss, Joanna Rick, Jo BMC Med Res Methodol Correspondence 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. BioMed Central 2013-03-13 /pmc/articles/PMC3618126/ /pubmed/23497061 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-37 Text en Copyright © 2013 Carroll et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Correspondence
Carroll, Christopher
Booth, Andrew
Leaviss, Joanna
Rick, Jo
“Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method
title “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method
title_full “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method
title_fullStr “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method
title_full_unstemmed “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method
title_short “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method
title_sort “best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method
topic Correspondence
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3618126/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23497061
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-37
work_keys_str_mv AT carrollchristopher bestfitframeworksynthesisrefiningthemethod
AT boothandrew bestfitframeworksynthesisrefiningthemethod
AT leavissjoanna bestfitframeworksynthesisrefiningthemethod
AT rickjo bestfitframeworksynthesisrefiningthemethod