177
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    4
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies : A typology of reviews,Maria J. Grant & Andrew Booth

      ,  
      Health Information & Libraries Journal
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework -- Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) -- was used to examine the main review types. Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The medical review article: state of the science.

          C D Mulrow (1987)
          Fifty reviews published during June 1985 to June 1986 in four major medical journals were assessed in a study of the methods of current review articles. Assessments were based on eight explicit criteria adapted from published guidelines for information syntheses. Of the 50 articles, 17 satisfied three of the eight criteria; 32 satisfied four or five criteria; and 1 satisfied six criteria. Most reviews had clearly specified purposes (n = 40) and conclusions (n = 37). Only one had clearly specified methods of identifying, selecting, and validating included information. Qualitative synthesis was often used to integrate information included in the review (n = 43); quantitative synthesis was rarely used (n = 3). Future research directives were mentioned in 21. These results indicate that current medical reviews do not routinely use scientific methods to identify, assess, and synthesize information. The methods used in this systematic assessment of reviews are proposed to improve the quality of future review articles.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A Brief History of Research Synthesis

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effective e-learning for health professionals and students--barriers and their solutions. A systematic review of the literature--findings from the HeXL project.

              In 2003/4 the Information Management Research Institute, Northumbria University, conducted a research project to identify the barriers to e-learning for health professionals and students. The project also established possible ways to overcome these barriers. The North of England Workforce Development Confederation funded the project. The project comprised a systematic review of the literature on barriers to and solutions/critical success factors for e-learning in the health field. Fifty-seven references were suitable for analysis. This review was supplemented by a questionnaire survey of learners and an interview study of learning providers to ensure that data identified from the literature were grounded in reality. The main barriers are: requirement for change; costs; poorly designed packages; inadequate technology; lack of skills; need for a component of face-to-face teaching; time intensive nature of e-learning; computer anxiety. A range of solutions can solve these barriers. The main solutions are: standardization; strategies; funding; integration of e-learning into the curriculum; blended teaching; user friendly packages; access to technology; skills training; support; employers paying e-learning costs; dedicated work time for e-learning. The authors argue that librarians can play an important role in e-learning: providing support and support materials; teaching information skills; managing and providing access to online information resources; producing their own e-learning packages; assisting in the development of other packages.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Health Information & Libraries Journal
                Wiley
                14711834
                June 2009
                June 2009
                May 27 2009
                : 26
                : 2
                : 91-108
                Article
                10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
                19490148
                47034971-0af9-454b-88f7-9469eede0d05
                © 2009

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article