A mixed-methods approach to systematic reviews

Abstract

There are an increasing number of published single-method systematic reviews that focus on different types of evidence related to a particular topic. As policy makers and practitioners seek clear directions for decision-making from systematic reviews, it is likely that it will be increasingly difficult for them to identify 'what to do' if they are required to find and understand a plethora of syntheses related to a particular topic.Mixed-methods systematic reviews are designed to address this issue and have the potential to produce systematic reviews of direct relevance to policy makers and practitioners.On the basis of the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute International Mixed Methods Reviews Methodology Group in 2012, the Institute adopted a segregated approach to mixed-methods synthesis as described by Sandelowski et al., which consists of separate syntheses of each component method of the review. Joanna Briggs Institute's mixed-methods synthesis of the findings of the separate syntheses uses a Bayesian approach to translate the findings of the initial quantitative synthesis into qualitative themes and pooling these with the findings of the initial qualitative synthesis.

Women's experiences of continuous fetal monitoring – a mixed‐methods systematic review

“…This systematic review and meta‐analysis used a mixed‐methods synthesis to combine the paradigms of qualitative and quantitative research exploring a single research question, and so understand a phenomenon in its entirety . A mixed‐methods approach also permitted the scope of this review to be as wide as possible, which was important given the anticipated paucity of literature concerning women's experiences of CFM.…”

Approach to identifying research gaps on vector-borne and other infectious diseases of poverty in urban settings: scoping review protocol from the VERDAS consortium and reflections on the project’s implementation

“…The dominant approach in systematic reviews was, for a long time, the meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), conceptualized as the “gold standard” for synthesizing evidence of effectiveness. Indeed, this type of review is so typical that it has virtually become synonymous with systematic reviews for most researchers, leading to a common misconception of the nature of systematic reviews [19, 20]. The goal of a meta-analysis of RCTs is to produce an overall pooled estimate effect of one specific intervention (e.g.…”

Are Physical Education Lessons Suitable for Sport Talent Identification? A Systematic Review of the Literature

“…Quantitative and qualitative articles were included in the SR for two reasons: (a) enlarge the sample, and (b) both types of research can play a role in research synthesis [30], maximising the strengths of both approaches and increasing the relevance of the SR [31]. Although calls have been made to further use and explore mixed-methods reviews in a systematic process, these methods are still not commonly used [32]. In short, a qualitative synthesis might be used to explore the findings of a prior quantitative synthesis or vice versa [33].…”