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

No abstract

There are an increasing number of published single-method systematic reviews that focus on different types of evidence related to a particular topic. As policy makers and practitioners seek clear directions for decision-making from systematic reviews, it is likely that it will be increasingly difficult for them to identify 'what to do' if they are required to find and understand a plethora of syntheses related to a particular topic.Mixed-methods systematic reviews are designed to address this issue and have the potential to produce systematic reviews of direct relevance to policy makers and practitioners.On the basis of the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute International Mixed Methods Reviews Methodology Group in 2012, the Institute adopted a segregated approach to mixed-methods synthesis as described by Sandelowski et al., which consists of separate syntheses of each component method of the review. Joanna Briggs Institute's mixed-methods synthesis of the findings of the separate syntheses uses a Bayesian approach to translate the findings of the initial quantitative synthesis into qualitative themes and pooling these with the findings of the initial qualitative synthesis.

Abstractobjective To systematically review the literature of factors affecting adherence to Antiretroviral treatment (ART) in Asian developing countries.methods Database searches in Medline ⁄ Ovid, Cochrane library, CINAHL, Scopus and PsychINFO for studies published between 1996 and December 2010. The reference lists of included papers were also checked, with citation searching on key papers.results A total of 437 studies were identified, and 18 articles met the inclusion criteria and were extracted and critically appraised, representing in 12 quantitative, four qualitative and two mixedmethod studies. Twenty-two individual themes, including financial difficulties, side effects, access, stigma and discrimination, simply forgetting and being too busy, impeded adherence to ART, and 11 themes, including family support, self-efficacy and desire to live longer, facilitated adherence.conclusion Adherence to ART varies between individuals and over time. We need to redress impeding factors while promoting factors that reinforce adherence through financial support, better accessible points for medicine refills, consulting doctors for help with side effects, social support and trusting relationships with care providers.