Mixing and matching: using qualitative methods to improve quantitative impact evaluations (IEs) and systematic reviews (SRs) of development outcomes

Jiménez, Emmanuel; Waddington, Hugh; Goel, Neeta; Prost, Audrey; Pullin, Andrew S.; White, Howard; Lahiri, Shaon; Narain, Anmol

doi:10.1080/19439342.2018.1534875

Cited by 29 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Namely, in some cases, synthesis of only one type of study findings (either qualitative or quantitative) might not be sufficient to understand multi-layered or complex interventions or programs typical for the environmental sector. The mixed methods review approach has been developed to link qualitative, mixed and quantitative study findings in a way to enhance the breadth and depth of understanding phenomena, problems and/or study topics [81,82]. Mixed methods reviews is a systematic review in which quantitative, qualitative and primary studies are synthesized using both quantitative and qualitative methods [81].…”

Section: Additional Methodological Options: Linking Quantitative and mentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence for environmental policy and management: an overview of different methodological options

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Qualitative research related to the human dimensions of conservation and environment is growing in quantity. Rigorous syntheses of such studies can help develop understanding and inform decision-making. They can combine findings from studies in varied or similar contexts to address questions relating to, for example, the lived experience of those affected by environmental phenomena or interventions, or to intervention implementation. Researchers in environmental management have adapted methodology for systematic reviews of quantitative research so as to address questions about the magnitude of intervention effects or the impacts of human activities or exposure. However, guidance for the synthesis of qualitative evidence in this field does not yet exist. The objective of this paper is to present a brief overview of different methods for the synthesis of qualitative research and to explore why and how reviewers might select between these. The paper discusses synthesis methods developed in other fields but applicable to environmental management and policy. These methods include thematic synthesis, framework synthesis, realist synthesis, critical interpretive synthesis and meta-ethnography. We briefly describe each of these approaches, give recommendations for the selection between them, and provide a selection of sources for further reading.

show abstract

Section: Additional Methodological Options: Linking Quantitative and mentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence for environmental policy and management: an overview of different methodological options

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…26 More guidance is needed on how to conduct mixed methods reviews and how best to achieve integration between the different components in this type of review. 27,28 Also, few studies have addressed the reasons for performing mixed methods reviews. A better understanding of these reasons can help to raise awareness about the potential of this type of review and generate new ideas for conducting future reviews.…”

Section: Potential Impact For Rsm Readers Outside the Authors' Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To our knowledge, at the methods level, one paper has presented five integration strategies for combining evidence from qualitative and implementation studies within intervention effectiveness reviews: juxtaposing findings, using a logic model or conceptual framework, analysing program theory, testing hypothesis derived using subgroup analysis, and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) 26 . More guidance is needed on how to conduct mixed methods reviews and how best to achieve integration between the different components in this type of review 27,28 . Also, few studies have addressed the reasons for performing mixed methods reviews.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations of mixed methods reviews approaches: A case study

Hong

Rees

Sutcliffe

et al. 2020

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conducting mixed methods reviews is challenging. The aim of this article is to describe a range of rationales for and approaches to mixed methods reviews, with a particular focus on one research group. 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 case study used document analysis. A total of 30 mixed methods reviews were identified and analyzed. The analysis revealed five key dimensions on which the reviews varied: review questions and purposes of the mixed methods questions, types of evidence and sources, reasons for using a mixed methods approach, synthesis methods and designs, and integration strategies. The questions in the included reviews addressed stakeholders' views, and intervention processes and/or intervention effectiveness. The mixed methods questions addressed four different purposes: comparing findings, identifying critical intervention features, quantifying effects, and making recommendations. Five main sources of evidence were used: formal evidence from primary studies, informal evidence, policy documents, systematic reviews, and work with stakeholders. Twelve reasons for conducting mixed methods reviews were identified: completeness, contextual understanding, credibility, different research questions, diversity of views, enhancement, explanation, process, triangulation, utility, development of a framework, and identification of promising interventions. Each review employed one or several integration strategies for comparing findings, connecting phases and/or assimilating data. It is hoped that the information garnered from this study will provide useful insights into mixed method review diversity and trigger new ideas for conducting this type of review.

show abstract

“…In the same year, Brown et al (2015) explored the environments in which health interventions occur, investigated the evaluation of interventions, and ascertained that the role of mixed methods in such evaluations is to consider the intervention's content and context. There were also investigations about the roles of mixing, matching, and the use of qualitative methods to improve quantitative impact evaluations (Jimenez, 2018) and the importance of qualitative methods in complex intervention evaluations (Woolcock, 2018). In 2019, Palinkas et al (2019) found that mixed methods designs had become ever more common in healthcare for evaluating the process and outcomes of an intervention, program, or policy effectiveness and investigated how mixed methods have been used in healthcare interventions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality guidelines for mixed methods research in intervention studies

Kopač¹,

Hlebec²

2020

Adv Meth Stat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among researchers' many investigations of the use of mixed methods in intervention studies, more recent discussions especially concern the roles played in such studies by qualitative research, intervention phases, procedures, and integration (Gallo and Lee, 2016; Woolcock, 2018; O'Cathain, 2018; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018). One can find the basic procedures to follow while realizing a mixed methods experimental design (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018), practical guidance (O'Cathain, 2018) for using qualitative research with a randomized control trial (RCT), and a mixed methods appraisal tool for appraising the methodological quality of RCTs, non-randomized studies, and mixed methods – MMAT (Hong et al., 2018). However, no model exists to assess the quality of mixed methods research in intervention studies, particularly experimental and quasi-experimental research in complex interventions. Our aim is to develop such a theoretical model. Today, the number of interventions relying on mixed methods methodology is growing exponentially. A theoretical model is called for to help assess the quality of mixed methods research in intervention studies, and in this respect our aim is to: (1) provide an overview of guidelines, recommendations, models, and quality criteria for mixed methods research; (2) overview the guidelines for intervention studies; (3) give a summary of guidelines and models for mixed methods research in such studies; (4) evaluate the mentioned guidelines, models, and quality criteria; (5) identify and describe the key elements of these guidelines, models, and quality criteria; and (6) develop a theoretical model for assessing the quality of mixed methods research designs used in intervention studies.

show abstract

Mixing and matching: using qualitative methods to improve quantitative impact evaluations (IEs) and systematic reviews (SRs) of development outcomes

Cited by 29 publications

References 44 publications

Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence for environmental policy and management: an overview of different methodological options

Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence for environmental policy and management: an overview of different methodological options

Variations of mixed methods reviews approaches: A case study

Quality guidelines for mixed methods research in intervention studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About