Methoden vergelijken

	Realistische Synthese	Kwalitatieve metasynhese
Vakgebied	Evidentiesynthese	Evidentiesynthese
Familie	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Jaar van ontstaan	2005	2007
Grondlegger	Ray Pawson (2005)	Sandelowski & Barroso (2007), Popularized by Thomas & Harden (2008)
Type	Framework	Framework
Oorspronkelijke bron	Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005). Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy and programme evaluation. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10(S1), 21–35.	Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45.
Aliassen	Realist Review, CMO Configuration, Mechanism-Based Synthesis	Qualitative Evidence Synthesis, Thematic Synthesis, Metasynthesis, Qualitative Systematic Review
Verwant	1	2
Samenvatting	Realist synthesis is a theory-driven, interpretive method for evidence synthesis developed by Ray Pawson (2005) that focuses on understanding HOW and WHY interventions work, rather than WHETHER they work. Grounded in realist philosophy, realist synthesis examines Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) configurations: how specific contextual conditions activate mechanisms that produce outcomes. Unlike traditional systematic reviews, which typically answer 'Does intervention X reduce outcome Y?', realist synthesis asks 'Under what conditions, through what mechanisms, for which populations does X work?' This approach is particularly valuable for complex interventions (policies, programs, multi-component treatments) where effectiveness varies dramatically across contexts, and for understanding why interventions succeed in some settings but fail in others.	Qualitative meta-synthesis is a systematic method for synthesizing findings from multiple qualitative research studies (interviews, focus groups, ethnographies) to develop integrated interpretations and theoretical insights. Formalized by Sandelowski and Barroso (2007) and popularized by Thomas and Harden (2008), qualitative meta-synthesis preserves the rich, contextual, interpretive nature of qualitative evidence while enabling broader conclusions across multiple studies. Unlike quantitative meta-analysis, which pools numbers, qualitative meta-synthesis synthesizes themes, meanings, and conceptual insights—answering questions like 'How do cancer patients experience treatment side effects?' or 'What factors shape patient engagement with preventive health programs?' across multiple studies.