Lisa Arai

Background: The inclusion of qualitative studies in systematic reviews poses methodological challenges. This paper presents worked examples of two methods of data synthesis (textual narrative and thematic), used in relation to one review, with the aim of enabling researchers to consider the strength of different approaches. Methods: A systematic review of lay perspectives of infant size and growth was conducted, locating 19 studies (including both qualitative and quantitative). The data extracted from these were synthesised using both a textual narrative and a thematic synthesis. Results: The processes of both methods are presented, showing a stepwise progression to the final synthesis. Both methods led us to similar conclusions about lay views toward infant size and growth. Differences between methods lie in the way they dealt with study quality and heterogeneity. Conclusion: On the basis of the work reported here, we consider textual narrative and thematic synthesis have strengths and weaknesses in relation to different research questions. Thematic synthesis holds most potential for hypothesis generation, but may obscure heterogeneity and quality appraisal. Textual narrative synthesis is better able to describe the scope of existing research and account for the strength of evidence, but is less good at identifying commonality.

Objective: To explore data on factors affecting implementation processes in papers contributing to a Cochrane systematic review (SR) of smoke alarm interventions, supplemented by further papers not included in the review. Design: Screening for data on implementation on the basis of: (1) primary studies included in a Cochrane SR, (2) further papers relating to these and similar studies, and (3) approaches to authors of these and other relevant studies and reports. Results: Relatively few data were found to help people seeking to implement smoke alarm promotion interventions. Conclusions: For practitioners and policymakers to be able to build on research evidence, researchers and journal editors need to ensure that sufficient data are published, or are otherwise available to interested parties to move from understanding the evidence to using it.