Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review

Pace, Romina; Pluye, Pierre; Bartlett, Gillian; Macaulay, Ann C.; Salsberg, Jon; Jagosh, Justin; Seller, Robbyn

doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.07.002

Cited by 1,040 publications

(856 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

845

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies were evaluated with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), which has good validity and reliability 27, 28, 29. For quantitative studies, the MMAT includes three subsections distinguishing between randomized controlled trials, non‐randomized comparative studies and descriptive studies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A mixed-method systematic review and meta-analysis of mental health professionals' attitudes toward smoking and smoking cessation among people with mental illnesses

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aimsPeople with mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders are important targets for smoking cessation interventions. Mental health professionals (MHPs) are ideally placed to deliver interventions, but their attitudes may prevent this. This systematic review therefore aimed to identify and estimate quantitatively MHPs attitudes towards smoking and main barriers for providing smoking cessation support and to explore these attitudes in‐depth through qualitative synthesis.MethodsThe online databases AMED, EMBASE, Medline, PsychINFO, HMIC and CINAHL were searched in March 2015 using terms relating to three concepts: ‘attitudes’, ‘mental health professionals’ and ‘smoking cessation’. Quantitative or qualitative studies of any type were included. Proportions of MHPs' attitudes towards smoking and smoking cessation were pooled across studies using random effects meta‐analysis. Qualitative findings were evaluated using thematic synthesis.ResultsThirty‐eight studies including 16 369 participants were eligible for inclusion. Pooled proportions revealed that 42.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 35.7–48.8] of MHPs reported perceived barriers to smoking cessation interventions, 40.5% (95% CI = 30.4–51.0) negative attitudes towards smoking cessation and 45.0% (95% CI = 31.9–58.4) permissive attitudes towards smoking. The most commonly held beliefs were that patients are not interested in quitting (51.4%, 95% CI = 33.4–69.2) and that quitting smoking is too much for patients to take on (38%, 95% CI = 16.4–62.6). Qualitative findings were consistent with quantitative results, revealing a culture of smoking as ‘the norm’ and a perception of cigarettes as a useful tool for patients and staff.ConclusionsA significant proportion of mental health professionals hold attitudes and misconceptions that may undermine the delivery of smoking cessation interventions; many report a lack of time, training and confidence as main barriers to addressing smoking in their patients.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A mixed-method systematic review and meta-analysis of mental health professionals' attitudes toward smoking and smoking cessation among people with mental illnesses

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(1) Original, empirical data (2) Quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods papers study that addresses the communication of a diagnosis of dementia and related attitudes and beliefs by health practitioners in primary care or specialist settings The quality of each paper was rated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (Pace et al, 2012). The mixed methods appraisal tool has been designed to be suitable for use in reviews that include qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies.…”

Section: Inclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Communicating a diagnosis of dementia: A systematic mixed studies review of attitudes and practices of health practitioners

Low¹,

McGrath

Swaffer

et al. 2018

Dementia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to systematically review practitioners' practices and attitudes in regards to communicating a diagnosis of dementia. A systematic search was conducted of Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed for English language original empirical papers. A sequential explanatory mixed studies analysis approach was used. Twenty-five quantitative descriptive, two intervention, six mixed methods descriptive and 21 qualitative studies were included. Pooled analysis showed that 34% of GPs and 48% of specialists usually/ routinely tell the person with dementia their diagnosis, and 89% of GPs and 97% specialists usually/routinely tell the family the diagnosis. Euphemistic terms such as 'memory problems' are more often used to describe dementia than medical terms. Practitioners' decision to diagnose and communicate the diagnosis of dementia are influenced by (a) their own beliefs regarding dementia and treatment efficacy and their confidence in diagnosis and communication; (b) patient circumstances including level of awareness, level of severity and family support; (c) the health and social care system including access to specialist and diagnostic services, reimbursement for diagnosis/management and availability of services and (d) cultural norms in relation to dementia including stigma, labels, and common clinical practice. The diagnosis and communication of diagnosis of dementia are intertwined processes and should be concurrently addressed in interventions. Multicomponent approaches to address these practices could include guideline development, practitioner education, anti-stigma public health campaigns, offering post-diagnosis treatments and support and sufficient reimbursement for practitioners for time spent managing dementia.

show abstract

“…23 Methodological quality was assessed using the relevant criterion for each method of investigation. Each included study was assigned a score based on the number of criterion met, along with a brief rationale for lower scores (see Table 2).…”

Section: Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Healthcare staff ’s experience in providing end-of-life care to children: A mixed-method review

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review

Cited by 1,040 publications

References 26 publications

A mixed-method systematic review and meta-analysis of mental health professionals' attitudes toward smoking and smoking cessation among people with mental illnesses

A mixed-method systematic review and meta-analysis of mental health professionals' attitudes toward smoking and smoking cessation among people with mental illnesses

Communicating a diagnosis of dementia: A systematic mixed studies review of attitudes and practices of health practitioners

Healthcare staff ’s experience in providing end-of-life care to children: A mixed-method review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About