2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/161732
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Comparison of three non-quantitative methods of literature review
Abstract:
Comparison of three non-quantitative methods of literature review
Conference Sponsor:Midwest Nursing Research Society
Conference Year:2001
Author:Harris, Marcelline,
P.I. Institution Name:Mayo Clinic
Title:
Contact Address:200 First Street, SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
Contact Telephone:507.285.7473
Systematic literature reviews underlie knowledge synthesis activities such as concept analysis, concept mapping, and evidence-based practice recommendations in support of quality outcomes. Because the experimental literature required for quantitative reviews is often limited, other methods of literature review remain of interest. Essential characteristics of such reviews are described; however there are limited discussions on the extent to which the method of review influences the realization of these characteristics. The purpose of this study was to compare three approaches to literature review: an integrative review, a heuristic outcomes model, and arcs software. A librarian-assisted literature search was conducted as part of a comprehensive review of indicators associated with effective discharge planning. A subset of articles reflecting various manuscript styles was purposefully selected for the present comparison. Findings indicate that the integrative review best supported summaries of context and sample across studies, while summaries of the use of variables across studies (structure, process, or outcome) were most easily achieved using the heuristic outcomes model. Only arcs software directly supported a summary of relationships between variables and the evidence supporting those relationships, both critical characteristics of knowledge synthesis. This study suggests a typology of literature review methods and knowledge synthesis activities may exist.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Midwest Nursing Research Society

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleComparison of three non-quantitative methods of literature reviewen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/161732-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Comparison of three non-quantitative methods of literature review</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Midwest Nursing Research Society</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2001</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Harris, Marcelline, </td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">Mayo Clinic</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value"> </td></tr><tr class="item-address"><td class="label">Contact Address:</td><td class="value">200 First Street, SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA</td></tr><tr class="item-phone"><td class="label">Contact Telephone:</td><td class="value">507.285.7473</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">mharris@winona.msus.edu</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">Systematic literature reviews underlie knowledge synthesis activities such as concept analysis, concept mapping, and evidence-based practice recommendations in support of quality outcomes. Because the experimental literature required for quantitative reviews is often limited, other methods of literature review remain of interest. Essential characteristics of such reviews are described; however there are limited discussions on the extent to which the method of review influences the realization of these characteristics. The purpose of this study was to compare three approaches to literature review: an integrative review, a heuristic outcomes model, and arcs software. A librarian-assisted literature search was conducted as part of a comprehensive review of indicators associated with effective discharge planning. A subset of articles reflecting various manuscript styles was purposefully selected for the present comparison. Findings indicate that the integrative review best supported summaries of context and sample across studies, while summaries of the use of variables across studies (structure, process, or outcome) were most easily achieved using the heuristic outcomes model. Only arcs software directly supported a summary of relationships between variables and the evidence supporting those relationships, both critical characteristics of knowledge synthesis. This study suggests a typology of literature review methods and knowledge synthesis activities may exist.</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T23:26:23Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T23:26:23Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipMidwest Nursing Research Societyen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.