Abstract:Objective: 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. Introduction: 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. Inclusion criteria: This review included English-language qualitative systematic reviews, published in 2022, that used all the steps outlined in JBI guidance for qualitative reviews. Methods: 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 preexisting 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. Results: Forty-three reviews met the inclusion criteria. The majority of 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 one 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 approaches 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. Conclusions: 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. Review registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/wy5kv/.

Narrative approaches to systematic review and synthesis of evidence for international development policy and practice

Systematic reviews of the literature: an introduction to current methods

Is Systematic Review an Effective Tool for Evidence-Based Health System Research in Developing Countries?

Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews

Addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion in JBI qualitative systematic reviews: a methodological scoping review

"How-to": scoping review?

Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review

Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application

[Evidence syntheses in public health: An overview]

Innovations in framework synthesis as a systematic review method

Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Qualitative Evidence Syntheses, Differences From Reviews of Intervention Effectiveness and Implications for Guidance

Narrative reanalysis: A methodological framework for a new brand of reviews

Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics

Does consideration and assessment of effects on health equity affect the conclusions of systematic reviews? A methodology study

Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline

HOW TO WRITE A GOOD QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS?

Methodological Issues in Combining Diverse Study Types in Systematic Reviews

Need for evidence synthesis for quality control of healthcare decision-making

Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions

Umbrella Review as an Emerging Approach of Evidence Synthesis in Health Sciences: A Bibliometric Analysis

How to Teach Evidence-Based Practice in Social Work: A Systematic Review