Abstract
Aim. The aim of this paper is to distinguish the integrative review method from other review methods and to propose methodological strategies specific to the integrative review method to enhance the rigour of the process. Background. Recent evidence‐based practice initiatives have increased the need for and the production of all types of reviews of the literature (integrative reviews, systematic reviews, meta‐analyses, and qualitative reviews). The integrative review method is the only approach that allows for the combination of diverse methodologies (for example, experimental and non‐experimental research), and has the potential to play a greater role in evidence‐based practice for nursing. With respect to the integrative review method, strategies to enhance data collection and extraction have been developed; however, methods of analysis, synthesis, and conclusion drawing remain poorly formulated. Discussion. A modified framework for research reviews is presented to address issues specific to the integrative review method. Issues related to specifying the review purpose, searching the literature, evaluating data from primary sources, analysing data, and presenting the results are discussed. Data analysis methods of qualitative research are proposed as strategies that enhance the rigour of combining diverse methodologies as well as empirical and theoretical sources in an integrative review. Conclusion. An updated integrative review method has the potential to allow for diverse primary research methods to become a greater part of evidence‐based practice initiatives.
Keywords
RigourSystematic reviewManagement scienceData collectionData extractionProcess (computing)Computer scienceNursing researchData scienceEngineering ethicsMEDLINEMedicineSociologyEpistemologyEngineeringNursingSocial science
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education
Context Formal qualitative synthesis is the process of pooling qualitative and mixed‐method research data, and then drawing conclusions regarding the collective meaning of the r...
Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods
The limitations of traditional forms of systematic review in making optimal use of all forms of evidence are increasingly evident, especially for policy-makers and practitioners...
From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence- Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance~!2009-10-24~!2009-10-03~!2010-07-16~!
Research synthesis seeks to gather, examine and evaluate systematically research reports that converge toward answering a carefully crafted research question, which states the p...
Why do we need Evidence-Based Methods in Cochrane?
If systematic reviews are to provide the information that people need when making decisions about health and social care, we need to be confident that the methods used to plan, ...
Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline
In systematic reviews that lack data amenable to meta-analysis, alternative synthesis methods are commonly used, but these methods are rarely reported. This lack of transparency...
Publication Info
- Year
- 2005
- Type
- article
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 546-553
- Citations
- 9069
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Altmetric
PlumX Metrics
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
9069
OpenAlex
Cite This
Robin Whittemore,
Kathleen A. Knafl
(2005).
The integrative review: updated methodology.
Journal of Advanced Nursing
, 52
(5)
, 546-553.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x