Open AccessOptions for a health system researcher to choose in Meta Review (MR) approaches-Meta Narrative (MN) and Meta Triangulation (MT)
Author(s) -
Sanjeev Davey,
Anuradha Davey,
Jai Vir Singh
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
indian journal of community medicine/indian journal of community medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.375
H-Index - 32
eISSN - 1998-3581
pISSN - 0970-0218
DOI - 10.4103/0970-0218.158843
Subject(s) - systematic review , narrative , meta analysis , narrative review , cochrane library , triangulation , medline , psychology , medicine , management science , political science , psychotherapist , engineering , cartography , geography , pathology , philosophy , linguistics , law
Two new approaches in systematic reviewing i.e. Meta-narrative review(MNR) (which a health researcher can use for topics which are differently conceptualized and studied by different types of researchers for policy decisions) and Meta-triangulation review(MTR) (done to build theory for studying multifaceted phenomena characterized by expansive and contested research domains) are ready for penetration in an arena of health system research. So critical look at which approach in Meta-review is better i.e. Meta-narrative review or Meta-triangulation review, can give new insights to a health system researcher. A systematic review on 2 key words-"meta-narrative review" and "meta-triangulation review" in health system research, were searched from key search engines, such as Pubmed, Cochrane library, Bio-med Central and Google Scholar etc till 21st March 2014 since last 20 years. Studies from both developed and developing world were included in any form and scope to draw final conclusions. However unpublished data from thesis was not included in systematic review. Meta-narrative review is a type of systematic review which can be used for a wide range of topics and questions involving making judgments and inferences in public health. On the other hand Meta-triangulation review is a three-phased, qualitative meta-analysis process which can be used to explore variations in the assumptions of alternative paradigms, gain insights into these multiple paradigms at one point of time and addresses emerging themes and the resulting theories.