Variations of mixed methods reviews approaches: A case study

Abstract

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.

Joint displays for qualitative-quantitative synthesis in mixed methods reviews

“…17,22 We expanded the application of joint displays from empirical mixed methods research to mixed systematic reviews and offered this approach for use in combination with the broad integration approaches such as connection, comparison, assimilation, juxtaposition, logical models, and conceptual frameworks. 7,8,13,14 Joint displays could be used in combination with all of the listed approaches because Guetterman et al [15][16] noted that the joint display types varied based on the employed integration techniques (connecting, building, merging, and embedding). We demonstrated that joint displays are valuable frameworks for linking the qualitative and quantitative integrated findings in mixed methods reviews.…”

“…Also, these approaches may not be applicable to reviews that do not have an underlying theory or conceptual framework for guidance. Recently, Hong et al 14 offered three approaches, namely, comparison, connection, and assimilation. In comparison approach, separately synthesized qualitative and quantitative findings are compared, and divergence among both findings is examined.…”

High work satisfaction despite high workload among European organic mixed livestock farmers: a mixed-method approach

“…This mixed-method approach of combining qualitative and quantitative data was implemented to develop a comprehensive, contextual understanding of the circumstances of OMLF farmers in Europe with a focus on work satisfaction. As described in the review on mixed methods by Hong et al (2020), we used qualitative data from open questions as well as quantitative data from closed questions and interpreted the results of both analyses together. The range of questions allowed a deep and diverse understanding of the social dimensions of the investigated farms.…”

How is recovery defined and measured in patients with low back pain? Protocol for a mixed study systematic review

“…Describing the definition and measurement of recovery using both quantitative and qualitative evidence will provide a more complete picture than either evidence base alone, and will also provide a diversity of views. 29…”