Dataset Information

Including mixed methods research in systematic reviews: examples from qualitative syntheses in TB and malaria control.

ABSTRACT: Health policy makers now have access to a greater number and variety of systematic reviews to inform different stages in the policy making process, including reviews of qualitative research. The inclusion of mixed methods studies in systematic reviews is increasing, but these studies pose particular challenges to methods of review. This article examines the quality of the reporting of mixed methods and qualitative-only studies.We used two completed systematic reviews to generate a sample of qualitative studies and mixed method studies in order to make an assessment of how the quality of reporting and rigor of qualitative-only studies compares with that of mixed-methods studies.Overall, the reporting of qualitative studies in our sample was consistently better when compared with the reporting of mixed methods studies. We found that mixed methods studies are less likely to provide a description of the research conduct or qualitative data analysis procedures and less likely to be judged credible or provide rich data and thick description compared with standalone qualitative studies. Our time-related analysis shows that for both types of study, papers published since 2003 are more likely to report on the study context, describe analysis procedures, and be judged credible and provide rich data. However, the reporting of other aspects of research conduct (i.e. descriptions of the research question, the sampling strategy, and data collection methods) in mixed methods studies does not appear to have improved over time.Mixed methods research makes an important contribution to health research in general, and could make a more substantial contribution to systematic reviews. Through our careful analysis of the quality of reporting of mixed methods and qualitative-only research, we have identified areas that deserve more attention in the conduct and reporting of mixed methods research.

SUBMITTER: Atkins S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3445834 | biostudies-other | 2012 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Including mixed methods research in systematic reviews: examples from qualitative syntheses in TB and malaria control.

Atkins Salla S Launiala Annika A Kagaha Alexander A Smith Helen H

BMC medical research methodology 20120430

<h4>Background</h4>Health policy makers now have access to a greater number and variety of systematic reviews to inform different stages in the policy making process, including reviews of qualitative research. The inclusion of mixed methods studies in systematic reviews is increasing, but these studies pose particular challenges to methods of review. This article examines the quality of the reporting of mixed methods and qualitative-only studies.<h4>Methods</h4>We used two completed systematic r ...[more]

PMID: 22545681

Similar Datasets

Project description:Methodologically sound mixed methods research can improve our understanding of health services by providing a more comprehensive picture of health services than either method can alone. This study describes the frequency of mixed methods in published health services research and compares the presence of methodological components indicative of rigorous approaches across mixed methods, qualitative, and quantitative articles.All empirical articles (n = 1,651) published between 2003 and 2007 from four top-ranked health services journals.All mixed methods articles (n = 47) and random samples of qualitative and quantitative articles were evaluated to identify reporting of key components indicating rigor for each method, based on accepted standards for evaluating the quality of research reports (e.g., use of p-values in quantitative reports, description of context in qualitative reports, and integration in mixed method reports). We used chi-square tests to evaluate differences between article types for each component.Mixed methods articles comprised 2.85 percent (n = 47) of empirical articles, quantitative articles 90.98 percent (n = 1,502), and qualitative articles 6.18 percent (n = 102). There was a statistically significant difference (?(2) (1) = 12.20, p = .0005, Cramer's V = 0.09, odds ratio = 1.49 [95% confidence interval = 1,27, 1.74]) in the proportion of quantitative methodological components present in mixed methods compared to quantitative papers (21.94 versus 47.07 percent, respectively) but no statistically significant difference (?(2) (1) = 0.02, p = .89, Cramer's V = 0.01) in the proportion of qualitative methodological components in mixed methods compared to qualitative papers (21.34 versus 25.47 percent, respectively).Few published health services research articles use mixed methods. The frequency of key methodological components is variable. Suggestions are provided to increase the transparency of mixed methods studies and the presence of key methodological components in published reports.

Project description:BackgroundPerforming cancer research relies on substantial financial investment, and contributions in time and effort from patients. It is therefore important that this research has real life impacts which are properly evaluated. The optimal approach to cancer research impact evaluation is not clear. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review of review articles that describe approaches to impact assessment, and to identify examples of cancer research impact evaluation within these reviews.MethodsIn total, 11 publication databases and the grey literature were searched to identify review articles addressing the topic of approaches to research impact assessment. Information was extracted on methods for data collection and analysis, impact categories and frameworks used for the purposes of evaluation. Empirical examples of impact assessments of cancer research were identified from these literature reviews. Approaches used in these examples were appraised, with a reflection on which methods would be suited to cancer research impact evaluation going forward.ResultsIn total, 40 literature reviews were identified. Important methods to collect and analyse data for impact assessments were surveys, interviews and documentary analysis. Key categories of impact spanning the reviews were summarised, and a list of frameworks commonly used for impact assessment was generated. The Payback Framework was most often described. Fourteen examples of impact evaluation for cancer research were identified. They ranged from those assessing the impact of a national, charity-funded portfolio of cancer research to the clinical practice impact of a single trial. A set of recommendations for approaching cancer research impact assessment was generated.ConclusionsImpact evaluation can demonstrate if and why conducting cancer research is worthwhile. Using a mixed methods, multi-category assessment organised within a framework, will provide a robust evaluation, but the ability to perform this type of assessment may be constrained by time and resources. Whichever approach is used, easily measured, but inappropriate metrics should be avoided. Going forward, dissemination of the results of cancer research impact assessments will allow the cancer research community to learn how to conduct these evaluations.

Project description:Background: WHO's 2015 End TB Strategy advocates social and economic (socioeconomic) support for TB-affected households to improve TB control. However, evidence concerning socioeconomic support for TB-affected households remains limited, especially in low-income countries. Protocol: This mixed-methods study in Nepal will: evaluate the socioeconomic impact of accessing TB diagnosis and care (Project 1); and create a shortlist of feasible, locally-appropriate interventions to mitigate this impact (Project 2). The study will be conducted in the Chitwan, Mahottari, Makawanpur, and Dhanusha districts of Nepal, which have frequent TB and poverty. The study population will include: approximately 200 people with TB (Cases) starting TB treatment with Nepal's National TB Program and 100 randomly-selected people without TB (Controls) in the same sites (Project 1); and approximately 40 key in-country stakeholders from Nepal including people with TB, community leaders, and TB healthcare professionals (Project 2). During Project 1, visits will be made to people with TB's households during months 3 and 6 of TB treatment, and a single visit made to Control households. During visits, participants will be asked about: TB-related costs (if receiving treatment), food insecurity, stigma; TB-related knowledge; household poverty level; social capital; and quality of life. During Project 2, stakeholders will be invited to participate in: a survey and focus group discussion (FGD) to characterise socioeconomic impact, barriers and facilitators to accessing and engaging with TB care in Nepal; and a one-day workshop to review FGD findings and suggest interventions to mitigate the barriers identified. Ethics and dissemination: The study has received ethical approval. Results will be disseminated through scientific meetings, open access publications, and a national workshop in Nepal. Conclusions: This research will strengthen understanding of the socioeconomic impact of TB in Nepal and generate a shortlist of feasible and locally-appropriate socioeconomic interventions for TB-affected households for trial evaluation.

Project description:Qualitative systematic reviews or qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are increasingly recognised as a way to enhance the value of systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical trials. They can explain the mechanisms by which interventions, evaluated within trials, might achieve their effect. They can investigate differences in effects between different population groups. They can identify which outcomes are most important to patients, carers, health professionals and other stakeholders. QES can explore the impact of acceptance, feasibility, meaningfulness and implementation-related factors within a real world setting and thus contribute to the design and further refinement of future interventions. To produce valid, reliable and meaningful QES requires systematic identification of relevant qualitative evidence. Although the methodologies of QES, including methods for information retrieval, are well-documented, little empirical evidence exists to inform their conduct and reporting.This structured methodological overview examines papers on searching for qualitative research identified from the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Methodology Register and from citation searches of 15 key papers.A single reviewer reviewed 1299 references. Papers reporting methodological guidance, use of innovative methodologies or empirical studies of retrieval methods were categorised under eight topical headings: overviews and methodological guidance, sampling, sources, structured questions, search procedures, search strategies and filters, supplementary strategies and standards.This structured overview presents a contemporaneous view of information retrieval for qualitative research and identifies a future research agenda. This review concludes that poor empirical evidence underpins current information practice in information retrieval of qualitative research. A trend towards improved transparency of search methods and further evaluation of key search procedures offers the prospect of rapid development of search methods.

Dataset Information

Including mixed methods research in systematic reviews: examples from qualitative syntheses in TB and malaria control.

Publications

Including mixed methods research in systematic reviews: examples from qualitative syntheses in TB and malaria control.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure