Combining the Power of Stories and the Power of Numbers: Mixed Methods Research and Mixed Studies Reviews

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

This article provides an overview of mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. These two approaches are used to combine the strengths of quantitative and qualitative methods and to compensate for their respective limitations. This article is structured in three main parts. First, the epistemological background for mixed methods will be presented. Afterward, we present the main types of mixed methods research designs and techniques as well as guidance for planning, conducting, and appraising mixed methods research. In the last part, we describe the main types of mixed studies reviews and provide a tool kit and examples. Future research needs to offer guidance for assessing mixed methods research and reporting mixed studies reviews, among other challenges.

Related collections

Most cited references 49

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Book: not found

Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques

Benoît Rihoux, Charles Ragin (2009)

0 comments Cited 212 times – based on 0 reviews

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Book: not found

SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research

Abbas Tashakkori, Charles Teddlie (2010)

0 comments Cited 210 times – based on 0 reviews

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews

Geoff Wong, Trish Greenhalgh, Gill Westhorp … (2013)

Background Meta-narrative review is one of an emerging menu of new approaches to qualitative and mixed-method systematic review. A meta-narrative review seeks to illuminate a heterogeneous topic area by highlighting the contrasting and complementary ways in which researchers have studied the same or a similar topic. No previous publication standards exist for the reporting of meta-narrative reviews. This publication standard was developed as part of the RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) project. The project's aim is to produce preliminary publication standards for meta-narrative reviews. Methods We (a) collated and summarized existing literature on the principles of good practice in meta-narrative reviews; (b) considered the extent to which these principles had been followed by published reviews, thereby identifying how rigor may be lost and how existing methods could be improved; (c) used a three-round online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of national and international experts in evidence synthesis, meta-narrative reviews, policy and/or publishing to produce and iteratively refine a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; (d) provided real-time support to ongoing meta-narrative reviews and the open-access RAMESES online discussion list so as to capture problems and questions as they arose; and (e) synthesized expert input, evidence review and real-time problem analysis into a definitive set of standards. Results We identified nine published meta-narrative reviews, provided real-time support to four ongoing reviews and captured questions raised in the RAMESES discussion list. Through analysis and discussion within the project team, we summarized the published literature, and common questions and challenges into briefing materials for the Delphi panel, comprising 33 members. Within three rounds this panel had reached consensus on 20 key publication standards, with an overall response rate of 90%. Conclusion This project used multiple sources to draw together evidence and expertise in meta-narrative reviews. For each item we have included an explanation for why it is important and guidance on how it might be reported. Meta-narrative review is a relatively new method for evidence synthesis and as experience and methodological developments occur, we anticipate that these standards will evolve to reflect further theoretical and methodological developments. We hope that these standards will act as a resource that will contribute to improving the reporting of meta-narrative reviews. To encourage dissemination of the RAMESES publication standards, this article is co-published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing and is freely accessible on Wiley Online Library (http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jan). Please see related articles http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/21 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/22

0 comments Cited 199 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Title: Annual Review of Public Health

Abbreviated Title: Annu. Rev. Public Health

Publisher: Annual Reviews

ISSN (Print): 0163-7525

ISSN (Electronic): 1545-2093

Publication date Created: March 18 2014

Publication date (Print): March 18 2014

Volume: 35

Issue: 1

Pages: 29-45

Affiliations

[1 ]Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, H3S 1Z1, Canada; email: ,

Article

DOI: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182440

PubMed ID: 24188053

SO-VID: 7386fd5a-eeac-41fc-9df7-9e19f509b4ba

History

Data availability:

Comments

Comment on this article

Cited by 454

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 1,223

See all reference authors

- Version 1