3.3.4 The review team

The success of a qualitative systematic review greatly depends on the composition and collaboration of the review team. In this section, we describe important features of the review team and the roles each member plays in conducting a thorough and methodologically rigorous review.

It is strongly recommended that at least one member of the team should have a sound understanding of qualitative primary and secondary research to navigate review processes. Additionally, involving other experts and knowledge users offers an invaluable holistic perspective that can produce academically robust, practically relevant and actionable reviews.

Detailed below are some of the important roles and responsibilities of the review team. It is worth noting that while these roles are not considered mandatory, their inclusion should be carefully considered based on the specific needs and complexity of the review. Building a well-rounded and multidisciplinary review team ensures a comprehensive and rigorous approach to the systematic review process, which contribute to the credibility of the findings.

• Principal investigator: The principal investigator is responsible for overseeing the entire review process, including the development of the research question, protocol and final report. They provide leadership and guidance to the team, ensuring that the review adheres to high standards of quality and rigour.

• Review team members: These individuals are responsible for conducting the review itself, which includes study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal. Ideally, the review team should encompass diverse backgrounds and perspectives, ensuring representation of various viewpoints. Additionally, the team should possess expertise in qualitative research methods and include members who are well-versed in the content area of the review.

• Topic matter experts: Depending on the topic of the review, topic matter experts should be consulted to provide insights and guidance. These experts can help ensure that the review findings are contextually and conceptually accurate.

• Methodological experts: Methodological experts, particularly those with experience in primary and secondary qualitative research, can guide the review process, assist with critical appraisal and data synthesis, and ensure methodological rigour.

• Information specialist: The information specialist plays a critical role in developing a robust search strategy and conducting effective searches in databases. Their expertise lies in information retrieval, which includes designing precise and comprehensive search strings, selecting appropriate databases and accessing specialised resources.

• Knowledge users: If the review includes specific knowledge users (e.g. policymakers, clinicians, patients), involving their perspectives and input—including perspectives related to equity, diversity and inclusion—can ensure that the review addresses relevant questions and provides actionable recommendations (Pollock et al. 2019).

Conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest are inherent ethical considerations in any research endeavour, including qualitative systematic reviews. They arise when the personal or financial interests of individuals involved in the review might unduly influence the review’s findings, conclusions or recommendations. A commonly encountered conflict of interest may involve members of the review team who are also authors of studies under consideration or included within the review. It is crucial to maintain transparency and address potential conflicts of interest to uphold the integrity and credibility of the review. Review team members should openly disclose any affiliations, financial interests or personal biases that could influence their objectivity or the review’s validity.

To identify and declare conflicts of interest, it is recommended that a proactive approach be undertaken. This approach should involve discussing these potential conflicts at the outset and establishing clear guidelines for managing them. This may include recusal from specific review tasks, such as study selection or data analysis, to avoid any potential bias.