3.1 Purpose of this guidance

In the field of evidence-based healthcare, qualitative systematic reviews are an important tool for understanding the nuanced and multifaceted aspects of patient and public experiences, preferences, and the social, cultural and psychological factors that influence health outcomes and decision-making.

The unique strength of qualitative systematic reviews lies in synthesising the findings of primary qualitative studies to uncover insights and to address critical questions that quantitative research alone cannot fully address. By exploring the preferences, values, understandings, opinions, attitudes and experiences of individuals and social groups (e.g. patients, the public, healthcare professionals, carers), qualitative systematic reviews can illuminate meanings and social processes, identify common themes and challenges, and provide a deeper understanding of the complex and often multifaceted factors that influence health and healthcare. These insights can lead to the development of appropriate interventions, address care gaps, support practice change and enhance quality and equity of healthcare by tackling health disparities and developing innovative intervention strategies. These, in turn, contribute to a more person-centred, equitable and effective healthcare system.

The purpose of this chapter is to situate qualitative systematic reviews within the broader field of evidence synthesis and evidence-based healthcare, and to provide detailed guidance for reviewers undertaking JBI’s endorsed approach to conducting qualitative evidence synthesis. We acknowledge that there are alternative approaches to undertaking qualitative evidence synthesis (Booth et al. 2016, 2018; Flemming & Noyes 2021; Hannes & Lockwood 2011a; Noblit & Hare 1988; Thomas & Harden 2008). This guidance specifically focuses on JBI’s approach, commonly referred to as meta-aggregation (Lockwood, Munn & Porritt 2015).

This chapter outlines the rationale for undertaking meta-aggregation and describes the methodology and methods for conducting a qualitative systematic review using a meta-aggregative approach. Key operational assumptions and definitions of core terms are included in this section.

What is new in this update?

• Existing sections revised and improved to provide more detailed guidance, enhanced explanations and more examples

• New sections: