Introduction: Mixed methods systematic reviews (MMSR) provide a more complete basis for complex decision-making than that currently offered by single method reviews, thereby maximizing their usefulness to clinical and policy decision-makers. Although MMSR are gaining traction, guidance regarding the methodology of combining quantitative and qualitative data is limited. In 2014, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group developed guidance for MMSR, however, since the introduction of this guidance, there have been significant developments in mixed methods synthesis. As such, the methodology group recognized the need to revise the guidance to align it with the current state of knowledge on evidence synthesis methodology Objective: To outline the updated methodological approach for conducting a JBI MMSR with a focus on data synthesis, specifically, methods related to how data is combined and the overall integration of the quantitative and qualitative evidence.Methods: Between 2015 and 2019 the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group undertook an extensive review of the literature, held annual face-to-face meetings (which were supplemented by teleconferences and regular email correspondence), sought advice from experts in the field and presented at scientific conferences. This process led to the development of guidance in the form of a Chapter included in the JBI Reviewer's Manual, the official guidance for conducting JBI systematic reviews. In 2019, the guidance was ratified by the JBI International Scientific Committee. Results:The updated JBI methodological guidance for conducting a MMSR recommends reviewers take a convergent approach to synthesis and integration whereby the specific method utilized is dependent on the nature/type of question(s) that is(are) posed in the systematic review. The JBI guidance is primarily based on Hong et al and Sandelowski's typology on MMSR. If the review question can be addressed by both quantitative and qualitative research designs, the convergent integrated approach should be followed which involves data transformation and allows reviewers to combine quantitative and qualitative data. If the focus of the review is on different aspects or dimensions of a particular phenomenon of interest, the convergent segregated approach is undertaken which involves independent synthesis of quantitative data and qualitative data leading to the generation of quantitative evidence and qualitative evidence which are then integrated together. Conclusions:The updated guidance on JBI MMSR provides foundational work to a rapidly evolving methodology and aligns with other seminal work undertaken in the field of mixed methods synthesis. Limitations to the current guidance are acknowledged and a series of methodological projects identified by the JBI Mixed Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are proposed. Mixed methods review offers an innovative framework for generating unique insights related to the complexities associated with healthcare quality and saf...
No abstract
To rationalize the selection of a research methodology, one must understand its philosophical origins and unique characteristics. This process can be challenging in the landscape of evolving qualitative methodologies. Grounded theory is a research methodology with a distinct history that has resulted in numerous approaches. Although the approaches have key similarities, they also have differing philosophical assumptions that influence the ways in which their methods are understood and implemented. The purpose of this discussion paper is to compare and contrast three widely used grounded theory approaches with key distinguishing characteristics, enabling a more thoughtful selection of approach. This work contributes to the existing literature through contrasting classic Glaserian grounded theory, Straussian grounded theory, and constructivist grounded theory in a systematic manner with prominent distinguishing characteristics developed from a review of the literature. These characteristics included historical development, philosophical perspective, role of the researcher, data analysis procedures, perspective of the grounded theory, and strengths/critique. Based on this analysis, three considerations are proposed to direct the methodological choice for a study: purpose, philosophy, and pragmatics. Understanding the similarities and differences in the grounded theory approaches can facilitate methodological transparency and determine the best fit for one's study and worldview as a researcher.
BackgroundDigital storytelling is an arts-based research method with potential to elucidate complex narratives in a compelling manner, increase participant engagement, and enhance the meaning of research findings. This method involves the creation of a 3- to 5-min video that integrates multimedia materials including photos, participant voices, drawings, and music. Given the significant potential of digital storytelling to meaningfully capture and share participants’ lived experiences, a systematic review of its use in healthcare research is crucial to develop an in-depth understanding of how researchers have used this method, with an aim to refine and further inform future iterations of its use.MethodsWe aim to identify and synthesize evidence on the use, impact, and ethical considerations of using digital storytelling in health research. The review questions are as follows: (1) What is known about the purpose, definition, use (processes), and contexts of digital storytelling as part of the research process in health research? (2) What impact does digital storytelling have upon the research process, knowledge development, and healthcare practice? (3) What are the key ethical considerations when using digital storytelling within qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method research studies? Key databases and the grey literature will be searched from 1990 to the present for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies that utilized digital storytelling as part of the research process. Two independent reviewers will screen and critically appraise relevant articles with established quality appraisal tools. We will extract narrative data from all studies with a standardized data extraction form and conduct a thematic analysis of the data. To facilitate innovative dissemination through social media, we will develop a visual infographic and three digital stories to illustrate the review findings, as well as methodological and ethical implications.DiscussionIn collaboration with national and international experts in digital storytelling, we will synthesize key evidence about digital storytelling that is critical to the development of methodological and ethical expertise about arts-based research methods. We will also develop recommendations for incorporating digital storytelling in a meaningful and ethical manner into the research process.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registry number CRD42017068002.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0704-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Teaching and learning strategies are needed to support learner-centered curricula, and prepare nurses who are capable of working in today's challenging health care environments. Although the traditional lecture is still widely used in nursing education, innovative approaches are needed to encourage discussion, debate, and critical reflection, activities that support lifelong learning. Arts-based learning [ABL] is a creative strategy with the potential to engage learners, foster understanding of multiple perspectives, and simultaneously connect cognitive and affective domains of learning. Walker and Avant's method of concept analysis is applied to examine the uses of ABL in the literature, define the attributes, distinguish the antecedents and consequences, identify model and other cases, and determine empirical referents of this concept. This analysis is presented to facilitate the conceptual understanding of ABL for use in research and nursing education.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.