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,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Campbell, Mhairi, Egan, Matt, Lorenc, Theo, Bond, Lyndal, Popham, Frank, Fenton, Candida, Benzeval, Michaela
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