A scoping review found increasing examples of rapid qualitative evidence syntheses and no methodological guidance

Abstract

ObjectivesThe objective of the study was to identify existing methodological guidance for the conduct of rapid qualitative evidence syntheses and examples of rapid qualitative evidence syntheses to describe the methods used. Study Design and SettingWe conducted a systematic scoping review. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, gray literature, including PROSPERO, with no date limits and solicited examples through experts and researchers in the field. ResultsWe found no methodological guidance to direct the conduct of rapid qualitative evidence synthesis and 15 examples including 13 completed reviews and two protocols. Diverse methods to abbreviate the review process were followed, which largely mirror methods developed for rapid reviews of clinical effects. Abbreviated search strategies, including date and language restrictions, were common, as was the use of a single reviewer for screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal. Descriptive approaches to synthesis, such as thematic synthesis, were more common than interpretive approaches, such as metaethnography. ConclusionThere is a need to develop and explore methods for the synthesis of qualitative research that balance the need for rapidity with rigor. In the meantime, providing details on the methods used, shortcuts made, and the implications of such methodological choices, together with collective sharing of innovations, becomes more important under increased time constraints.