Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Mixed methods reviews have been advocated to provide a complete and rich understanding of complex phenomena to facilitate decision-making. However, conducting this type of review is challenging due to the diversity of included studies. A better understanding is needed on how and why to conduct this type of review, and how to integrate the different components.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine a body of reviews in order to understand variations and similarities in approaches to mixed methods reviews.
Methods: A case study was conducted to describe the mixed methods review process used at the Department of Health and Social Care Reviews Facility in England. The methods consisted of document analysis. The data extraction and analysis focused on the: steps followed, questions addressed, reasons for conducting a mixed methods review, types of evidence and sources used, and integration strategies used. The analysis used existing frameworks from the literature on mixed methods research.
Results: A total of 31 reviews published between 1999 and 2019 were identified. Different types of questions were found that addressed stakeholders’ views, intervention processes, and/or intervention effectiveness. The mixed methods questions aimed at exploring intervention effectiveness or appropriateness, identifying critical intervention features, quantifying the effect of critical intervention features, and making recommendations about future research. Twelve reasons for performing mixed methods reviews were found: completeness, contextual understanding, credibility, different research questions, diversity of views, enhancement, explanation, process, triangulation, utility, framework development, and promising interventions identification. The reviews used five main sources of evidence: formal evidence from primary studies, informal evidence, policy documents, systematic reviews, and consultations with stakeholders. The consultations with stakeholders used different methods (e.g., workshops, interviews, surveys) and aimed at understanding the views of stakeholders to inform the analysis and interpretation of the review findings. Different integration strategies for comparing findings, connecting phases and/or assimilating data were used to achieve these aims.
Conclusions: We identified significant variation across the body of mixed methods reviews examined. The review process was bespoke and driven by the questions, needs and concerns of the stakeholders as well as available evidence, resources and time. The analyzed reviews covered different types of questions (e.g., what, how), evidence (e.g., views, effectiveness, process), sources (e.g., primary studies, stakeholders’ consultation), perspectives (e.g., patients, clinicians), and synthesis methods (e.g., meta-analysis, thematic synthesis). This study also suggests broadening the conceptualisation of mixed methods reviews to take into account a variety of sources and types of evidence.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine a body of reviews in order to understand variations and similarities in approaches to mixed methods reviews.
Methods: A case study was conducted to describe the mixed methods review process used at the Department of Health and Social Care Reviews Facility in England. The methods consisted of document analysis. The data extraction and analysis focused on the: steps followed, questions addressed, reasons for conducting a mixed methods review, types of evidence and sources used, and integration strategies used. The analysis used existing frameworks from the literature on mixed methods research.
Results: A total of 31 reviews published between 1999 and 2019 were identified. Different types of questions were found that addressed stakeholders’ views, intervention processes, and/or intervention effectiveness. The mixed methods questions aimed at exploring intervention effectiveness or appropriateness, identifying critical intervention features, quantifying the effect of critical intervention features, and making recommendations about future research. Twelve reasons for performing mixed methods reviews were found: completeness, contextual understanding, credibility, different research questions, diversity of views, enhancement, explanation, process, triangulation, utility, framework development, and promising interventions identification. The reviews used five main sources of evidence: formal evidence from primary studies, informal evidence, policy documents, systematic reviews, and consultations with stakeholders. The consultations with stakeholders used different methods (e.g., workshops, interviews, surveys) and aimed at understanding the views of stakeholders to inform the analysis and interpretation of the review findings. Different integration strategies for comparing findings, connecting phases and/or assimilating data were used to achieve these aims.
Conclusions: We identified significant variation across the body of mixed methods reviews examined. The review process was bespoke and driven by the questions, needs and concerns of the stakeholders as well as available evidence, resources and time. The analyzed reviews covered different types of questions (e.g., what, how), evidence (e.g., views, effectiveness, process), sources (e.g., primary studies, stakeholders’ consultation), perspectives (e.g., patients, clinicians), and synthesis methods (e.g., meta-analysis, thematic synthesis). This study also suggests broadening the conceptualisation of mixed methods reviews to take into account a variety of sources and types of evidence.