There should be a match in this section between the methodology of the primary research studies to be considered for the review and the review question.
The JBI SUMARI software offers standardized text consisting of statements regarding the types of studies considered for inclusion in a meta aggregative review. Any of the following 3 options provide an appropriate structure for a qualitative review:
Option 1: This review will consider studies that focus on qualitative data including, but not limited to, designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research and feminist research.
Option 2: This review will consider interpretive studies that draw on the experiences of <insert text> with <insert text> including, but not limited to, designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research and feminist research.
Option 3: This review will consider critical studies that explore <insert text> including, but not limited to, designs such as action research and feminist research.
As can be seen from the three set text options above, creating a protocol for an interpretive or critical or generalist systematic review depends on the nature of the question being addressed. Interpretive reviews are conducted to aggregate evidence related to social interactions that occur within health care, or seek to establish insights into social, emotional or experiential phenomena. Critical reviews might be conducted to explore issues such as power or change. A critical and interpretive review might be conducted to bring both elements together.
A narrow approach in terms of focusing solely on either interpretive or critical designs alone is not recommended unless there is a clear, rationale and theoretically informed requirement to do so. The international consensus is heavily in favor of inclusive reviews of literature across both the critical and interpretive paradigm.