Quality of reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research: a methodological review protocol

Abstract

Background Mixed methods designs are increasingly used in health care research to enrich findings. However, little is known about the frequency of use of this methodology in chiropractic research, or the quality of reporting among chiropractic studies using mixed methods. Objective To quantify the use and quality of mixed methods in chiropractic research, and explore the association of study characteristics (e.g., authorship, expertise, journal impact factor, country and year of publication) with reporting quality. Methods We will conduct a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature to identify all chiropractic mixed methods studies published from inception of each database to December 31, 2020. Articles reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods, or mixed qualitative methods, will be included. Pairs of reviewers will perform article screening, data extraction, risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), and appraisal of reporting quality using the Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) guideline. We will explore the correlation between GRAMMS and MMAT scores, and construct generalized estimating equations to explore factors associated with reporting quality. Discussion This will be the first methodological review to examine the reporting quality of published mixed methods studies involving chiropractic research. The results of our review will inform opportunities to improve reporting in chiropractic mixed methods studies. Our results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented publicly at conferences and as part of a doctoral thesis.

Teaching Social Determinants of Health in Nursing Programs

“…The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) 7 is widely used for critical research appraisal and is designed for systematic mixed study reviews. [8][9][10][11] The tool is appropriate for assessing qualitative research, randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized studies, quantitative descriptive studies, and mixed-methods studies. 7 Chosen studies were rated as having strong, moderate, or weak quality (vs assigning overall quality scores) as Hong et al 7 recommended.…”