How to … synthesise qualitative data

Ten Steps to Conduct a Systematic Review

This article introduces a concise 10-step guide tailored for researchers engaged in systematic reviews within the field of medicine and health, aligning with the imperative for evidence-based healthcare. The guide underscores the importance of integrating research evidence, clinical proficiency, and patient preferences. It emphasizes the need for precision in formulating research questions, utilizing tools such as PICO(S)(Population Intervention Comparator Outcome), PEO (Population Exposure Outcome), SPICE (setting, perspective, intervention/exposure/interest, comparison, and evaluation), and SPIDER (expectation, client group, location, impact, professionals, service and evaluation), and advocates for the validation of research ideas through preliminary investigations. The guide prioritizes transparency by recommending the documentation and registration of protocols on various platforms. It highlights the significance of a well-organized literature search, encouraging the involvement of experts to ensure a high-quality search strategy. The critical stages of screening titles and abstracts are navigated using different tools, each characterized by its specific advantages. This diverse approach aims to enhance the effectiveness of the systematic review process. In conclusion, this 10-step guide provides a practical framework for the rigorous conduct of systematic reviews in the domain of medicine and health. It addresses the unique challenges inherent in this field, emphasizing the values of transparency, precision, and ongoing efforts to improve primary research practices. The guide aims to contribute to the establishment of a robust evidence base, facilitating informed decision-making in healthcare.

Service users experience of psychological interventions in primary care settings: A qualitative meta-synthesis

Primary care mental health services play a crucial role in public mental health by providing local and accessible psychological interventions that meet individuals' needs. Despite growing research investigating service users' perspectives of psychological interventions, a qualitative systematic review in this context is not available. The present meta-synthesis collates the existing articles and gives a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies on service users' experience of psychological interventions in primary care. Multiple databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library) were searched for published qualitative studies of service users' experiences of psychological interventions delivered in primary care. Articles were included if they met inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. All types of psychological interventions were considered across model and delivery format (e.g., face-to-face, computerised programmes, and group). NVIVO was used to code the dataset and themes were extracted following thematic synthesis. Twenty-two studies were included. Four analytical themes and 10 subthemes emerged. The identified themes were as follows: (1) 'Access and Acceptability: facilitators and barriers', (2) 'Structural aspects'; (3) 'Therapeutic process' and (4) 'Outcomes'. A model of interrelationships between themes is proposed. Findings suggest several 'essential ingredients' across psychological interventions and modalities. The crucial role of relational factors, the importance of assessing service users' perceptions of treatment features (e.g., remote delivery) and of tailoring the intervention to their needs were emphasised. Results also suggest involving service users more in discussions and decisions about psychological interventions offered might enhance access, acceptability, and engagement. Recommendations for practice and research are provided.