Cargando…
Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health
BACKGROUND: Review of theory is an area of growing methodological advancement. Theoretical reviews are particularly useful where the literature is complex, multi-discipline, or contested. It has been suggested that adopting methods from systematic reviews may help address these challenges. However,...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4208031/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25312937 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-114 |
_version_ | 1782341066501914624 |
---|---|
author | Campbell, Mhairi Egan, Matt Lorenc, Theo Bond, Lyndal Popham, Frank Fenton, Candida Benzeval, Michaela |
author_facet | Campbell, Mhairi Egan, Matt Lorenc, Theo Bond, Lyndal Popham, Frank Fenton, Candida Benzeval, Michaela |
author_sort | Campbell, Mhairi |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Review of theory is an area of growing methodological advancement. Theoretical reviews are particularly useful where the literature is complex, multi-discipline, or contested. It has been suggested that adopting methods from systematic reviews may help address these challenges. However, the methodological approaches to reviews of theory, including the degree to which systematic review methods can be incorporated, have received little discussion in the literature. We recently employed systematic review methods in a review of theories about the causal relationship between income and health. METHODS: This article discusses some of the methodological issues we considered in developing the review and offers lessons learnt from our experiences. It examines the stages of a systematic review in relation to how they could be adapted for a review of theory. The issues arising and the approaches taken in the review of theories in income and health are considered, drawing on the approaches of other reviews of theory. RESULTS: Different approaches to searching were required, including electronic and manual searches, and electronic citation tracking to follow the development of theories. Determining inclusion criteria was an iterative process to ensure that inclusion criteria were specific enough to make the review practical and focused, but not so narrow that key literature was excluded. Involving subject specialists was valuable in the literature searches to ensure principal papers were identified and during the inductive approaches used in synthesis of theories to provide detailed understanding of how theories related to another. Reviews of theory are likely to involve iterations and inductive processes throughout, and some of the concepts and techniques that have been developed for qualitative evidence synthesis can be usefully translated to theoretical reviews of this kind. CONCLUSIONS: It may be useful at the outset of a review of theory to consider whether the key aim of the review is to scope out theories relating to a particular issue; to conduct in-depth analysis of key theoretical works with the aim of developing new, overarching theories and interpretations; or to combine both these processes in the review. This can help decide the most appropriate methodological approach to take at particular stages of the review. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4208031 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42080312014-10-28 Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health Campbell, Mhairi Egan, Matt Lorenc, Theo Bond, Lyndal Popham, Frank Fenton, Candida Benzeval, Michaela Syst Rev Methodology BACKGROUND: Review of theory is an area of growing methodological advancement. Theoretical reviews are particularly useful where the literature is complex, multi-discipline, or contested. It has been suggested that adopting methods from systematic reviews may help address these challenges. However, the methodological approaches to reviews of theory, including the degree to which systematic review methods can be incorporated, have received little discussion in the literature. We recently employed systematic review methods in a review of theories about the causal relationship between income and health. METHODS: This article discusses some of the methodological issues we considered in developing the review and offers lessons learnt from our experiences. It examines the stages of a systematic review in relation to how they could be adapted for a review of theory. The issues arising and the approaches taken in the review of theories in income and health are considered, drawing on the approaches of other reviews of theory. RESULTS: Different approaches to searching were required, including electronic and manual searches, and electronic citation tracking to follow the development of theories. Determining inclusion criteria was an iterative process to ensure that inclusion criteria were specific enough to make the review practical and focused, but not so narrow that key literature was excluded. Involving subject specialists was valuable in the literature searches to ensure principal papers were identified and during the inductive approaches used in synthesis of theories to provide detailed understanding of how theories related to another. Reviews of theory are likely to involve iterations and inductive processes throughout, and some of the concepts and techniques that have been developed for qualitative evidence synthesis can be usefully translated to theoretical reviews of this kind. CONCLUSIONS: It may be useful at the outset of a review of theory to consider whether the key aim of the review is to scope out theories relating to a particular issue; to conduct in-depth analysis of key theoretical works with the aim of developing new, overarching theories and interpretations; or to combine both these processes in the review. This can help decide the most appropriate methodological approach to take at particular stages of the review. BioMed Central 2014-10-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4208031/ /pubmed/25312937 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-114 Text en Copyright © 2014 Campbell et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Methodology Campbell, Mhairi Egan, Matt Lorenc, Theo Bond, Lyndal Popham, Frank Fenton, Candida Benzeval, Michaela Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health |
title | Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health |
title_full | Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health |
title_fullStr | Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health |
title_full_unstemmed | Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health |
title_short | Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health |
title_sort | considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health |
topic | Methodology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4208031/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25312937 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-114 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT campbellmhairi consideringmethodologicaloptionsforreviewsoftheoryillustratedbyareviewoftheorieslinkingincomeandhealth AT eganmatt consideringmethodologicaloptionsforreviewsoftheoryillustratedbyareviewoftheorieslinkingincomeandhealth AT lorenctheo consideringmethodologicaloptionsforreviewsoftheoryillustratedbyareviewoftheorieslinkingincomeandhealth AT bondlyndal consideringmethodologicaloptionsforreviewsoftheoryillustratedbyareviewoftheorieslinkingincomeandhealth AT pophamfrank consideringmethodologicaloptionsforreviewsoftheoryillustratedbyareviewoftheorieslinkingincomeandhealth AT fentoncandida consideringmethodologicaloptionsforreviewsoftheoryillustratedbyareviewoftheorieslinkingincomeandhealth AT benzevalmichaela consideringmethodologicaloptionsforreviewsoftheoryillustratedbyareviewoftheorieslinkingincomeandhealth |