Literature DB >> 19233357

A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews.

Pierre Pluye1, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Frances Griffiths, Janique Johnson-Lafleur.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19233357     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.01.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud        ISSN: 0020-7489            Impact factor:   5.837


  224 in total

Review 1.  Systematic review of factors influencing the adoption of information and communication technologies by healthcare professionals.

Authors:  Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Marie Desmartis; Michel Labrecque; Josip Car; Claudia Pagliari; Pierre Pluye; Pierre Frémont; Johanne Gagnon; Nadine Tremblay; France Légaré
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 4.460

2.  Measuring organizational readiness for knowledge translation in chronic care.

Authors:  Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Jenni Labarthe; France Légaré; Mathieu Ouimet; Carole A Estabrooks; Geneviève Roch; El Kebir Ghandour; Jeremy Grimshaw
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 7.327

Review 3.  Barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic prescription: a systematic review of user groups' perceptions.

Authors:  Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Édith-Romy Nsangou; Julie Payne-Gagnon; Sonya Grenier; Claude Sicotte
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-10-15       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Measuring the shadows: A systematic review of chronic emptiness in borderline personality disorder.

Authors:  Caitlin E Miller; Michelle L Townsend; Nicholas J S Day; Brin F S Grenyer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  Survivorship care plan preferences of cancer survivors and health care providers: a systematic review and quality appraisal of the evidence.

Authors:  Dori L Klemanski; Kristine K Browning; Jennifer Kue
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2015-04-25       Impact factor: 4.442

6.  Information visualizations of symptom information for patients and providers: a systematic review.

Authors:  Maichou Lor; Theresa A Koleck; Suzanne Bakken
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 7.  A mixed methods systematic review of success factors of mhealth and telehealth for maternal health in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Authors:  Mohamed Ali Ag Ahmed; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Louise Hamelin-Brabant; Gisele Irène Claudine Mbemba; Hassane Alami
Journal:  Mhealth       Date:  2017-06-06

Review 8.  The prevalence and severity of fatigue in men with prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Ben Langston; Jo Armes; Anneliese Levy; Elizabeth Tidey; Emma Ream
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2013-03-03       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 9.  Family Physician-Case Manager Collaboration and Needs of Patients With Dementia and Their Caregivers: A Systematic Mixed Studies Review.

Authors:  Vladimir Khanassov; Isabelle Vedel
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 5.166

10.  Users' perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing EHR in Canada: a study protocol.

Authors:  Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Nicola Shaw; Claude Sicotte; Luc Mathieu; Yvan Leduc; Julie Duplantie; James Maclean; France Légaré
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2009-04-09       Impact factor: 7.327

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.