Systematic reviews are generally placed above narrative reviews in an assumed hierarchy of secondary research evidence. We argue that systematic reviews and narrative reviews serve different purposes and should be viewed as complementary. Conventional systematic reviews address narrowly focused questions; their key contribution is summarising data. Narrative reviews provide interpretation and critique; their key contribution is deepening understanding.
Meta-study is an exciting new opportunity for the analysis and synthesis of qualitative research findings. Over the last two decades, a wide range of methods
Seventy six senior academics from 11 countries invite The BMJ’s editors to reconsider their policy of rejecting qualitative research on the grounds of low priority. They challenge the journal to develop a proactive, scholarly, and pluralist approach to research that aligns with its stated mission
As health care reform strategists increasingly recognize the critically important potential of effective everyday self-care decision making for reducing the burden of illness and the strain on health service systems, wemust find ways to understand and support it. In this study, the authors investigate persons with expertise in self-care management of type 2 diabetes,HIV/AIDS, and multiple sclerosis to understand how everyday self-care decision making is learned and experienced. They used interview, think-aloud, and focus groups to construct an account of how persons affected by these chronic diseases make decisions in relation to the choices in their everyday lives and learn to manage the untoward effects of these conditions accordingto their unique contexts and values. The findings form a conceptual foundation for ongoing inquiry into this complex phenomenon and provide insights that might assist clinicians to understand more fully the responses and attitudes of those they serve.