How can we synthesise qualitative and quantitative evidence for policy makers and managers?
How can we synthesise qualitative and quantitative evidence for policy makers and managers?
Objectives: To describe how different types of evidence - qualitative, quantitative and non-research based - can be integrated/synthesised to inform policy decision making.
Study design: Review and critical commentary on methods for synthesis used in health and social science research, undertaken in 2004.
Principle findings: We identify four basic approaches to reviewing and synthesising evidence that have potential to inform policy decision making.: narrative (including traditional ‘literature reviews’ and more methodologically explicit approaches such as narrative synthesis, thematic analysis, ‘realist synthesis’ and ‘meta-narrative mapping’), qualitative (which convert all available evidence into qualitative form using techniques such as ‘meta-ethnography’ and ‘qualitative cross-case analysis’), quantitative (which convert all evidence into quantitative form using techniques such as ‘quantitative case survey’ or ‘content analysis’) and Bayesian meta-analysis and decision analysis (which can convert qualitative evidence such as preferences about different outcomes into quantitative form or ‘weights’ to use in quantitative synthesis).
Conclusion: There is no single, agreed framework for synthesising diverse forms of evidence. Many of the methods that show potential for this have been devised for reviews which include either qualitative or quantitative evidence rather than those that attempt tointegrate/synthesis both types of evidence. Methods for synthesis are evolving – some are less well developed than others. Nonetheless we must learn to synthesise diverse forms of evidence if we are to better meet the needs of policy makers.
Implications: Policy makers have always used a widerange of sources of evidence in making decisions about policy and service organisation but are under pressureto adopt a more systematic approach to the utilisationof this complex evidence base. Synthesis is an attractive solution. The choice of approach is contingent on the policy questions and the nature ofthe evidence. More policy-research dialogue is required to develop synthesis methods.
Primary funding: Canadian HSR Foundation & NHS R&DSDO
Pope, Catherine
21ae1290-0838-4245-adcf-6f901a0d4607
Mays, Nicholas
d50c08ca-789a-4183-b2d0-3f327ddc8170
Popay, Jennie
28d316be-1e7f-4c4d-9a2b-34b08f09f965
2005
Pope, Catherine
21ae1290-0838-4245-adcf-6f901a0d4607
Mays, Nicholas
d50c08ca-789a-4183-b2d0-3f327ddc8170
Popay, Jennie
28d316be-1e7f-4c4d-9a2b-34b08f09f965
Pope, Catherine, Mays, Nicholas and Popay, Jennie
(2005)
How can we synthesise qualitative and quantitative evidence for policy makers and managers?
6th International Conference on the Scientific Basis of Health Services, Montreal, Canada.
17 - 19 Sep 2005.
Record type:
Conference or Workshop Item
(Paper)
Abstract
Objectives: To describe how different types of evidence - qualitative, quantitative and non-research based - can be integrated/synthesised to inform policy decision making.
Study design: Review and critical commentary on methods for synthesis used in health and social science research, undertaken in 2004.
Principle findings: We identify four basic approaches to reviewing and synthesising evidence that have potential to inform policy decision making.: narrative (including traditional ‘literature reviews’ and more methodologically explicit approaches such as narrative synthesis, thematic analysis, ‘realist synthesis’ and ‘meta-narrative mapping’), qualitative (which convert all available evidence into qualitative form using techniques such as ‘meta-ethnography’ and ‘qualitative cross-case analysis’), quantitative (which convert all evidence into quantitative form using techniques such as ‘quantitative case survey’ or ‘content analysis’) and Bayesian meta-analysis and decision analysis (which can convert qualitative evidence such as preferences about different outcomes into quantitative form or ‘weights’ to use in quantitative synthesis).
Conclusion: There is no single, agreed framework for synthesising diverse forms of evidence. Many of the methods that show potential for this have been devised for reviews which include either qualitative or quantitative evidence rather than those that attempt tointegrate/synthesis both types of evidence. Methods for synthesis are evolving – some are less well developed than others. Nonetheless we must learn to synthesise diverse forms of evidence if we are to better meet the needs of policy makers.
Implications: Policy makers have always used a widerange of sources of evidence in making decisions about policy and service organisation but are under pressureto adopt a more systematic approach to the utilisationof this complex evidence base. Synthesis is an attractive solution. The choice of approach is contingent on the policy questions and the nature ofthe evidence. More policy-research dialogue is required to develop synthesis methods.
Primary funding: Canadian HSR Foundation & NHS R&DSDO
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 2005
Venue - Dates:
6th International Conference on the Scientific Basis of Health Services, Montreal, Canada, 2005-09-17 - 2005-09-19
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 44299
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/44299
PURE UUID: dfcbbd3b-5a7e-4491-a411-15c89788b20b
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 22 Feb 2007
Last modified: 12 Dec 2021 03:25
Export record
Contributors
Author:
Catherine Pope
Author:
Nicholas Mays
Author:
Jennie Popay
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics