“What the Meta Is Going On?”—A Scoping Review of the Different Methods and Methodology of Qualitative Synthesis

There is a proliferation of terms that are used to define and describe qualitative methods of review synthesis. These terms can make understanding which approach to use difficult, and the ability to generate operational clarity challenging. This is particularly important for lifespan mental health research, and further research is required that examines and maps the terms and approaches to synthesis. This scoping review aims to map the landscape of qualitative synthesis methods, evaluate the ability to operationalise named methods, explore their philosophical foundations and methodological associations, and consider the application within a specifically identified area of lifespan mental health research. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a scoping review was undertaken. A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases and grey literature sources. Articles were included that examined a methodological approach to qualitative synthesis. Data extraction and charting focused on synthesis type, frameworks, philosophical alignment, and operational guidance. Fifty-four articles were identified, and within these, 14 qualitative methodologies were identified, 5 types of aggregative methods, and 10 types of interpretive methods of synthesis. Meta-ethnography, meta-synthesis, and framework synthesis were the most frequently cited methodologies. A subset of these methodologies and methods was found to be the more operationalizable, and these are discussed. The review highlights significant terminological and methodological fragmentation in qualitative synthesis. It underscores the need for clearer guidance, standardised terminology, and stronger links between synthesis methodologies, methods, and philosophical traditions. A decision tree is proposed to support researchers in selecting appropriate synthesis methodologies.