A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews - PubMed (original) (raw)
Review
A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews
Pierre Pluye et al. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009 Apr.
Abstract
A new form of literature review has emerged, Mixed Studies Review (MSR). These reviews include qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. In the present paper, we examine MSRs in health sciences, and provide guidance on processes that should be included and reported. However, there are no valid and usable criteria for concomitantly appraising the methodological quality of the qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies.
Objective: To propose criteria for concomitantly appraising the methodological quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies or study components.
Design: A three-step critical review was conducted.
Data sources: 2322 references were identified in MEDLINE, and their titles and abstracts were screened; 149 potentially relevant references were selected and the full-text papers were examined; 59 MSRs were retained and scrutinized using a deductive-inductive qualitative thematic data analysis. This revealed three types of MSR: convenience, reproducible, and systematic.
Review methods: Guided by a proposal, we conducted a qualitative thematic data analysis of the quality appraisal procedures used in the 17 systematic MSRs (SMSRs).
Results: Of 17 SMSRs, 12 showed clear quality appraisal procedures with explicit criteria but no SMSR used valid checklists to concomitantly appraise qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. In two SMSRs, criteria were developed following a specific procedure. Checklists usually contained more criteria than needed. In four SMSRs, a reliability assessment was described or mentioned. While criteria for quality appraisal were usually based on descriptors that require specific methodological expertise (e.g., appropriateness), no SMSR described the fit between reviewers' expertise and appraised studies. Quality appraisal usually resulted in studies being ranked by methodological quality.
Conclusion: A scoring system is proposed for concomitantly appraising the methodological quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies for SMSRs. This scoring system may also be used to appraise the methodological quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods components of mixed methods research.
Similar articles
- A hierarchy of evidence for assessing qualitative health research.
Daly J, Willis K, Small R, Green J, Welch N, Kealy M, Hughes E. Daly J, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):43-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.014. Epub 2006 Sep 28. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007. PMID: 17161753 Review. - An increasing number of qualitative research papers in oncology and palliative care: does it mean a thorough development of the methodology of research?
Borreani C, Miccinesi G, Brunelli C, Lina M. Borreani C, et al. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004 Jan 23;2:7. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-2-7. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004. PMID: 14741052 Free PMC article. Review. - The effectiveness of self-assessment on the identification of learner needs, learner activity, and impact on clinical practice: BEME Guide no. 10.
Colthart I, Bagnall G, Evans A, Allbutt H, Haig A, Illing J, McKinstry B. Colthart I, et al. Med Teach. 2008;30(2):124-45. doi: 10.1080/01421590701881699. Med Teach. 2008. PMID: 18464136 Review. - How will we know "good" qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the dialogue in health services research.
Devers KJ. Devers KJ. Health Serv Res. 1999 Dec;34(5 Pt 2):1153-88. Health Serv Res. 1999. PMID: 10591278 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
- Factors Related to the Recurrence of Sickness Absence Due to Common Mental Health Disorders: A Systematic Review.
In't Hout L, van Hees SGM, Vossen E, Oomens S, van de Mheen D, Blonk RWB. In't Hout L, et al. J Occup Rehabil. 2024 Jul 10. doi: 10.1007/s10926-024-10224-9. Online ahead of print. J Occup Rehabil. 2024. PMID: 38985239 - Barriers and enablers to addressing smoking, nutrition, alcohol consumption, physical activity and gestational weight gain (SNAP-W) as part of antenatal care: A mixed methods systematic review.
Dilworth S, Doherty E, Mallise C, Licata M, Hollis J, Wynne O, Lane C, Wolfenden L, Wiggers J, Kingsland M. Dilworth S, et al. Implement Sci Commun. 2024 Oct 9;5(1):112. doi: 10.1186/s43058-024-00655-z. Implement Sci Commun. 2024. PMID: 39385250 Free PMC article. Review. - A tradition in transition: factors perpetuating and hindering the continuance of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) summarized in a systematic review.
Berg RC, Denison E. Berg RC, et al. Health Care Women Int. 2013 Oct;34(10):837-59. doi: 10.1080/07399332.2012.721417. Epub 2013 Mar 14. Health Care Women Int. 2013. PMID: 23489149 Free PMC article. Review. - Treatment burden in multimorbidity: an integrative review.
Lee JE, Lee J, Shin R, Oh O, Lee KS. Lee JE, et al. BMC Prim Care. 2024 Sep 28;25(1):352. doi: 10.1186/s12875-024-02586-z. BMC Prim Care. 2024. PMID: 39342121 Free PMC article. Review. - Nurses' sources of information to inform clinical practice: An integrative review to guide evidence-based practice.
Fossum M, Opsal A, Ehrenberg A. Fossum M, et al. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2022 Oct;19(5):372-379. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12569. Epub 2022 Mar 4. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2022. PMID: 35244324 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources