BACKGROUND: Whittemore and Knafl's updated description of methodological approach for integrative review was published in 2005. Since then, the five stages of the approach have been regularly used as a basic conceptual structure of the integrative reviews conducted by nursing researchers. However, this methodological approach is seldom examined from the perspective of how systematically and rigorously the stages are implemented in the published integrative reviews. PURPOSE: To appraise the selected integrative reviews on the basis of the methodological approach according to the five stages published by Whittemore and Knafl in 2005. DESIGN: A literature review was used in this study. CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health), PubMed, OVID (Journals@Ovid) and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for integrative reviews published between 2002 and 2014. Papers were included if they used the methodological approach described by Whittemore and Knafl, were published in English and were focused on nursing education or nursing expertise. A total of 259 integrative review publications for potential inclusion were identified. RESULTS: Ten integrative reviews fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Findings from the studies were extracted and critically examined according to the five methodological stages. The reviews assessed followed the guidelines of the stated methodology approach to different extents. The stages of literature search, data evaluation and data analysis were fairly poorly formulated and only partially implemented in the studies included in the sample. The other two stages, problem identification and presentation, followed those described in the methodological approach quite well. CONCLUSION: Increasing use of research in clinical practice is inevitable, and therefore, integrative reviews can play a greater role in developing evidence-based nursing practices. Because of this, nurse researchers should pay more attention to sound integrative nursing research to systematise the review process and make it more rigorous.
BACKGROUND: Whittemore and Knafl's updated description of methodological approach for integrative review was published in 2005. Since then, the five stages of the approach have been regularly used as a basic conceptual structure of the integrative reviews conducted by nursing researchers. However, this methodological approach is seldom examined from the perspective of how systematically and rigorously the stages are implemented in the published integrative reviews. PURPOSE: To appraise the selected integrative reviews on the basis of the methodological approach according to the five stages published by Whittemore and Knafl in 2005. DESIGN: A literature review was used in this study. CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health), PubMed, OVID (Journals@Ovid) and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for integrative reviews published between 2002 and 2014. Papers were included if they used the methodological approach described by Whittemore and Knafl, were published in English and were focused on nursing education or nursing expertise. A total of 259 integrative review publications for potential inclusion were identified. RESULTS: Ten integrative reviews fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Findings from the studies were extracted and critically examined according to the five methodological stages. The reviews assessed followed the guidelines of the stated methodology approach to different extents. The stages of literature search, data evaluation and data analysis were fairly poorly formulated and only partially implemented in the studies included in the sample. The other two stages, problem identification and presentation, followed those described in the methodological approach quite well. CONCLUSION: Increasing use of research in clinical practice is inevitable, and therefore, integrative reviews can play a greater role in developing evidence-based nursing practices. Because of this, nurse researchers should pay more attention to sound integrative nursing research to systematise the review process and make it more rigorous.
Authors: António Ferraz; João Valente-Dos-Santos; Hugo Sarmento; Pedro Duarte-Mendes; Bruno Travassos Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 3.390