Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

A mixed studies review (MSR) is a type of literature review that includes qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. This form of literature review is popular since it can provide a rich understanding of complex health interventions and programs. However, conducting a MSR can be challenging since it combines several study designs. A wiki toolkit was developed to provide MSR-specific guidance and suggest tips and tools for planning, conducting and reporting MSR. The toolkit is structured according to eight stages for conducting a systematic review: (1) formulate a review question, (2) define eligibility criteria, (3) select sources of information, (4) identify potentially relevant studies, (5) select relevant studies, (6) appraise the quality of studies, (7) extract data, and (8) synthesize included studies. The toolkit includes examples, tips for searching studies with diverse designs, existing tools for searching, selecting and appraising, synthesis designs, and a template for proposals and reports. This toolkit is presented as a wiki, which allows users to collaboratively modify the content and provides continuous updates on the science of MSR. It is hoped that this wiki toolkit will be useful to all users and contribute to creating a network of people interested in MSR.

Keywords

Mixed studies review mixed methods review systematic review toolkit wiki

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson,

L. M.

Oliver,

S. R.

Michie,

Rehfuess,

Noyes,

, & Shemilt

(2013). Investigating complexity in systematic reviews of interventions by using a spectrum of methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(11), 1223-1229.

Cooke,

Smith,

, & Booth,

(2012). Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1435-1443.

Dixon-Woods,

Agarwal,

Jones,

Young,

, & Sutton,

(2005). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 10(1), 45-53.

El Sherif,

Pluye,

Gore,

Granikov,

, & Hong,

Q. N.

(2016). Performance of a mixed filter to identify relevant studies for mixed studies reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104(1), 47-51.

Heyvaert,

Maes,

, & Onghena,

(2013). Mixed methods research synthesis: Definition, framework, and potential. Quality & Quantity, 47(2), 659-676.

Hong,

Q. N.

Fàbregues,

Bartlett,

Boardman,

Cargo,

Dagenais,

, et al. (2018). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285-291.

Hong,

Q. N.

, & Pluye,

(2018). Systematic reviews: A brief historical overview. Education for Information, 34(4), 261-276.

Hong,

Q. N.

Pluye,

Bujold,

, & Wassef,

(2017). Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: Implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Systematic Reviews, 6(61), 1-14.

Langlois,

Nie,

J. Y.

Thomas,

Hong,

Q. N.

, & Pluye,

(2018). Discriminating between empirical studies and nonempirical works using automated text classification. Research Synthesis Methods.

10.

Moher,

Liberati,

Tetzlaff,

, & Altman,

D. G.

(2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.

11.

Pluye,

Gagnon,

M. P.

Griffiths,

, & Johnson-Lafleur,

(2009). A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in mixed studies reviews. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(4), 529-546.

12.

Pluye,

, & Hong,

Q. N.

(2014). Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: Mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 29-45.

13.

Pluye,

Hong,

Q. N.

Bush,

P. L.

, & Vedel,

(2016). Opening-up the definition of systematic literature review: The plurality of worldviews, methodologies and methods for reviews and syntheses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 73(5), 2-5.

14.

Pope,

Mays,

, & Popay,

(2007). Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative health research: A guide to methods. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

15.

Spencer,

A. J.

, & Eldredge,

J. D.

(2018). Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106(1), 46.

16.

Stillwell,

S. B.

Fineout-Overholt,

Melnyk,

B. M.

, & Williamson,

K. M.

(2010). Evidence-based practice, step by step: asking the clinical question: a key step in evidence-based practice. American Journal of Nursing, 110(3), 58-61.

17.

Wong,

Greenhalgh,

Westhorp,

Buckingham,

, & Pawson,

(2013a). RAMESES publication standards: Meta-narrative reviews. BMC Medicine, 11(1), 20.

18.

Wong,

Greenhalgh,

Westhorp,

Buckingham,

, & Pawson,

(2013b). RAMESES publication standards: Realist syntheses. BMC Medicine, 11(21).

The wiki toolkit for planning,conducting and reporting mixed studies reviews

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References