Qualitative Evidence Syntheses: Assessing the Relative Contributions of Multi-context and Single-context Reviews
Overview
Affiliations
Aims: To examine the strengths and weaknesses of multi-context (international) qualitative evidence syntheses in comparison with single-context (typically single-country) reviews. We compare a multi-country synthesis with single-context syntheses on facility-based delivery in Nigeria and Kenya.
Design: Discussion paper.
Background: Qualitative evidence increasingly contributes to decision-making. International organizations commission multi-context reviews of qualitative evidence to gain a comprehensive picture of similarities and differences across comparable (e.g., low- and middle-income) countries. Such syntheses privilege breadth over contextual detail, risking inappropriate interpretation and application of review findings. Decision-makers value single-context syntheses that account for the contexts of their populations and health services. We explore how findings from multi- and single-context syntheses contribute against a conceptual framework (adequacy, coherence, methodological limitations and relevance) that underpins the GRADE Confidence in Evidence of Reviews of Qualitative Evidence approach.
Data Sources: Included studies and findings from a multi-context qualitative evidence synthesis (2001-2013) and two single-context syntheses (Nigeria, 2006-2017; and Kenya, 2002-2016; subsequently updated and revised).
Findings: Single-context reviews contribute cultural, ethnic and religious nuances and specific health system factors (e.g., use of a voucher system). Multi-context reviews contribute to universal health concerns and to generic health system concerns (e.g., access and availability).
Implications For Nursing: Nurse decision-makers require relevant, timely and context-sensitive evidence to inform clinical and managerial decision-making. This discussion paper informs future commissioning and use of multi- and single-context qualitative evidence syntheses.
Conclusion: Multi- and single-context syntheses fulfil complementary functions. Single-context syntheses add nuances not identifiable in the remit and timescales of a multi-context review. Impact This study offers a unique comparison between multi-context and single country (Nigeria and Kenya) qualitative syntheses exploring facility-based birth. Clear strengths and weaknesses were identified to inform commissioning and application of future syntheses. Characteristics can inform the commissioning of single- and multi-context nursing-oriented reviews across the world.
Evans C, Hassanein Z, Bains M, Bennett C, Bjerrum M, Edgley A JBI Evid Synth. 2024; 23(3):454-479.
PMID: 39224923 PMC: 11893006. DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00025.
Rapid reviews methods series: guidance on rapid qualitative evidence synthesis.
Booth A, Sommer I, Noyes J, Houghton C, Campbell F BMJ Evid Based Med. 2024; 29(3):194-200.
PMID: 38355285 PMC: 11137447. DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112620.
Ezezika O, Mengistu M, Opoku E, Farheen A, Chauhan A, Barrett K PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023; 2(11):e0001283.
PMID: 36962654 PMC: 10022167. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001283.
Evans C, Poku B, Pearce R, Eldridge J, Hendrick P, Knaggs R BMJ Open. 2020; 10(5):e036192.
PMID: 32439696 PMC: 7247387. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036192.