Meta-synthesis entails bringing up qualitative data together to interpret new research and is an emerging technique in the field of medicine; it has the potential to employ several distinct research techniques. However, its appropriateness or effectiveness is achieved when used in a specific scientific research field. The technique assists in developing theory; however, it should not be confused with meta-analysis that tests quantitative data hypothesis (Lachal et al., 2017). Theories like implementation, program, or explanatory are primarily generated and help explain why the technique sometimes fails to work, evaluation with trial results, or theory for future testing (Lachal et al., 2017). Meta-synthesis is, therefore, best designed to re-interpret meaning across a variety of qualitative research. Meta-synthesis follow six stages, meaning re-interpretation occurs through timeframe, question, sources and searches, selection, appraisal, and synthesis. The effect of meta-synthesis on research translation comes through focusing on existing research translation followed by systematically comparing the information in and across other studies (Leary and Walker, 2018). While research translation and comparison occur, the relationship between main themes is retained, and thematic analysis is included.
On the other hand, a meta-analysis is an epidemiological, formal, and quantitative research that systematically evaluates the outcomes to derive conclusions from past research. Results associated with meta-analysis tend to include precise estimates of risk or treatment factor effects on diseases or associated results compared to individual research that contributes to a pooled analysis (Lee, 2018). Meta-analysis presents several benefits to research: a quantitative and consolidated review of a complicated, large, and conflicting literature body (Leary and Walker, 2018). The effects of meta-analysis on research translation allow for investigating various phenomena and establishing variation causes. Moreover, meta-analysis is critical in determining the pharmaceuticals that gain FDA approval in evidence-based practice.
In the article Meta-synthesis: An Original Method to Synthesize Quantitative Literature in Psychiatry, the study’s method used detailed steps in a meta-synthesis published in 2015. Lachal et al. (2017) performed the analysis on young adults and adolescents with suicidal behaviors. Lachal et al. (2017) explained several methodological themes via the latest literature on meta-synthesis from the research. Using a six-step approach, the researchers defined the question of the study alongside the inclusion criteria, chose the research, evaluated the quality of the research, and extracted and presented formal information (Lachal et al., 2017). The remaining two phases in the approach entail data analysis and synthesis expression. In conclusion, the researchers provide a sufficient balance between an objective, rigorous scientific data analysis approach and essential researcher’s subjectivity contribution in the final work contribution (Lachal et al., 2017). Moreover, mental and clinical health professionals better recognize the standard research toolkit in psychiatry.
In the article Quantitative Synthesis of Research Evidence: Multilevel Meta-Analysis, the quantitative summary permits suggestion-based, objective, and knowledgeable practice, study, and policy decisions. As per Moeyaert (2019), the multilevel meta-analysis resulted in unbiased, powerful, and precise effect estimate sizes. Nonetheless, the use of the multilevel meta-analysis was restricted, and its full potential was never fully comprehended. Moreover, by familiarizing with the method at a theoretical level, Moeyaert (2019) discusses its relevance and entire potential in evidence-based practice. The researcher illustrates that for a successful multilevel meta-analysis, the researcher must calculate participant-specific standardized side effects. Further, the researcher illustrates the multilevel meta-analysis process through a recent dataset constating single-case meta-analysis. Output tables, software codes, graphical displays, and interpretations of the effect estimate sizes are provided, allowing the reader to utilize the same practice to repeat the analysis associated with the research.
References
Brown R. (2018). Resisting moralization in health promotion.Ethical Theory and Moral Practice : An International Forum, 21(4), 997–1011. Web.
Hansson, S. O., & Froding, B. (2021). Ethical conflicts in patient-centered care.Clinical Ethics, 16, 2, 55-66. Web.
Lachal, J., Revah-Levy, A., Orri, M., & Moro, M. R. (2017). Meta-synthesis: An original method to synthesize qualitative literature in psychiatry.Frontiers in psychiatry, 8, 269. Web.
Leary, H., & Walker, A. (2018). Meta-analysis and meta-synthesis methodologies: Rigorously piecing together research.Technological Trends, 62(5), 525-534. Web.
Lee Y. H. (2018). An overview of meta-analysis for clinicians.The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine, 33(2), 277–283. Web.
Moeyaert, M. (2019). Quantitative synthesis of research evidence: Multilevel meta-analysis.Behavioral Disorders, 44(4), 241-256. Web.