Evans Catrin, Hassanein Zeinab M, Bains Manpreet, Bennett Clare, Bjerrum Merete, Edgley Alison, Edwards Deborah, Porritt Kylie, Salmond Susan
The Nottingham Centre for Evidence-based Healthcare: A JBI Centre of Excellence, School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Public Health and Community Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Asyut, Egypt.
JBI Evid Synth. 2025 Mar 1;23(3):454-479. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00025. Epub 2024 Sep 4.
The objective of this methodological scoping review was to investigate ways in which qualitative review teams are addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the process of conducting and reporting qualitative systematic reviews that use JBI guidelines.
To promote health equity, there is a need for evidence synthesis processes and practices to develop approaches that incorporate EDI. Some guidance is available to guide equity-focused review methods and reporting, but this is primarily oriented to quantitative systematic reviews. There is currently limited knowledge about how review teams are addressing EDI within qualitative evidence syntheses.
This review included English-language qualitative systematic reviews, published in 2022, that used all the stjpg outlined in the JBI guidance for qualitative reviews.
A 1-year sample of published reviews was identified from a search undertaken on March 17, 2023, of 2 health care databases: MEDLINE (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCOhost). Data extraction followed a framework approach, using an adapted pre-existing equity template. This included attention to i) the reporting of a range of characteristics associated with EDI, ii) search approaches, and iii) analytical approaches (including reflexivity, intersectionality, and knowledge user engagement). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative summary.
Forty-three reviews met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the reviews (n = 30) framed their questions and aims in a generic/universal (rather than EDI-focused) way. Six reviews justified their population focus in terms of an EDI-related issue. Only 1 review included a knowledge user. The sociodemographic and other key characteristics of the samples in underpinning studies were poorly reported, making it hard to discern EDI-related issues or to undertake EDI-related analyses. Thirteen of the reviews included non-English-language evidence sources, and 31 reviews included gray literature sources. Ten reviews demonstrated an element of intersectional or otherwise critical approach within their analyses of categories and synthesized findings (whereby issues of power and/or representation were explicitly considered). Only 8 reviews included discussions of review team composition and reflexivity within the review process.
This EDI-focused methodological enquiry has highlighted some limitations within current qualitative evidence synthesis practice. Without closer attention to EDI, there is a danger that systematic reviews may simply serve to amplify, rather than illuminate, existing gaps, silences, and inequitable knowledge claims based on dominant representations. This review sets out a range of suggestions to help qualitative evidence synthesis teams to more systematically embed EDI within their methods and practices.
Open Science Framework https://osf.io/wy5kv/.
本方法学范围综述的目的是调查定性综述团队在使用循证卫生保健国际协作网（JBI）指南进行和报告定性系统评价的过程中，处理公平性、多样性和包容性（EDI）的方式。
为促进健康公平，需要证据综合过程和实践来开发纳入EDI的方法。有一些指导可用于指导以公平为重点的综述方法和报告，但这主要针对定量系统评价。目前对于综述团队如何在定性证据综合中处理EDI的了解有限。
本综述纳入2022年发表的英文定性系统评价，这些评价使用了JBI定性综述指南中概述的所有步骤。
从2023年3月17日对两个卫生保健数据库进行的检索中确定了一年的已发表综述样本：医学文献数据库（MEDLINE，Ovid平台）和护理学与健康领域数据库（CINAHL，EBSCOhost平台）。数据提取采用框架方法，使用预先存在的公平性模板的改编版本。这包括关注：i）与EDI相关的一系列特征的报告；ii）检索方法；iii）分析方法（包括反思性、交叉性和知识使用者参与）。使用描述性统计和叙述性总结对数据进行分析。
43篇综述符合纳入标准。大多数综述（n = 30）以通用/普遍（而非以EDI为重点）的方式构建其问题和目标。6篇综述从与EDI相关的问题角度说明了其对研究对象的关注。只有1篇综述纳入了知识使用者。基础研究中样本的社会人口学和其他关键特征报告不佳，难以辨别与EDI相关的问题或进行与EDI相关的分析。13篇综述纳入了非英语语言的证据来源，31篇综述纳入了灰色文献来源。10篇综述在对类别和综合结果的分析中展示了交叉性或其他批判性方法的要素（其中明确考虑了权力和/或代表性问题）。只有8篇综述在综述过程中讨论了综述团队的组成和反思性。
这项以EDI为重点的方法学探究突出了当前定性证据综合实践中的一些局限性。如果不更密切地关注EDI，存在系统评价可能只是放大而非阐明基于主导表述的现有差距、沉默和不公平知识主张的风险。本综述提出了一系列建议，以帮助定性证据综合团队在其方法和实践中更系统地融入EDI。
开放科学框架https://osf.io/wy5kv/ 。
