Description:

This Master Prompt would focus on establishing the methodological foundations of the integrative review as a distinctive approach to evidence synthesis. It would guide researchers in defining the purpose, characteristics, scope and methodological architecture of an integrative review; explaining its capacity to integrate diverse forms of evidence; and distinguishing it appropriately from systematic reviews, scoping reviews, narrative reviews, critical reviews and meta-analyses.

A major emphasis would be placed on methodological coherence. Researchers would determine why an integrative review is appropriate for the research problem, what forms of evidence may legitimately be integrated, which methodological framework should guide the review, and how transparency and rigor can be maintained despite heterogeneity in study designs. The uploaded literature particularly demonstrates the widespread use of Whittemore and Knafl's framework and the integration of qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method evidence. The selected papers support this architecture: several explicitly use the five-stage Whittemore and Knafl process of problem identification, literature search, data evaluation, data analysis and presentation, while others demonstrate theory-driven integration and the inclusion of empirical and non-empirical evidence.