A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews

Pluye, Pierre; Gagnon, Marie‐Pierre; Griffiths, Frances; Johnson‐Lafleur, Janique

doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.01.009

Cited by 853 publications

(779 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

745

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Various data collection methods were used to gather and collate information: participant observations, questionnaires (cross-sectional and pre/post CK programme), individual interviews (face-toface, telephone, semi-structured, in-depth) and focus groups. Four themes were identified from the analysis: (i) increase in reported intake of nutritious food and food security; (ii) increased self-reliance, dignity and engagement with community services; (iii) improved social skills and enhanced Table 4 Checklists used to assess quality of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies Quantitative (15) Qualitative (21) Mixed methods (16) A. Each section is rated as 1 (strong), 2 (moderate) orsocial support; and (iv) increased skills, confidence and enjoyment in cooking.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The quality of qualitative studies was evaluated based on judgement by two authors as positive, neutral or negative using the Cochrane checklist (12) (Table 4). Mixed-method studies were assessed against both qualitative and quantitative criteria and a judgement made on the overall quality based on both assessments as well as the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (16) (Table 4). Where there were aspects of doubt during the review process a third opinion was sought from investigators.…”

Section: Study Retrieval and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social health and nutrition impacts of community kitchens: a systematic review

Iacovou

Pattieson

Truby

et al. 2012

Public Health Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Community kitchens have been implemented by communities as a public health strategy to prevent food insecurity through reducing social isolation, improving food and cooking skills and empowering participants. The aim of the present paper was to investigate whether community kitchens can improve the social and nutritional health of participants and their families. Design: A systematic review of the literature was conducted including searches of seven databases with no date limitations. Setting: Community kitchens internationally. Subjects: Participants of community kitchens across the world. Results: Ten studies (eight qualitative studies, one mixed-method study and one cross-sectional study) were selected for inclusion. Evidence synthesis suggested that community kitchens may be an effective strategy to improve participants' cooking skills, social interactions and nutritional intake. Community kitchens may also play a role in improving participants' budgeting skills and address some concerns around food insecurity. Long-term solutions are required to address income-related food insecurity. Conclusions: Community kitchens may improve social interactions and nutritional intake of participants and their families. More rigorous research methods, for both qualitative and quantitative studies, are required to effectively assess the impact of community kitchens on social and nutritional health in order to confidently recommend them as a strategy in evidence-based public health practice.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Retrieval and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Social health and nutrition impacts of community kitchens: a systematic review

Iacovou

Pattieson

Truby

et al. 2012

Public Health Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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

“…The Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used, since the selected studies had various kinds of designs (Pluye et al, 2009). The MMAT consists of three quality criteria sets for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies.…”

Section: Quality Appraisalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of fall prevention in residential care facilities: A systematic review of barriers and facilitators

Vlaeyen

Stas

Leysens

et al. 2017

International Journal of Nursing Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To identify the barriers and facilitators for fall prevention implementation in residential care facilities. Design: Systematic review. Review registration number on PROSPERO: CRD42013004655. Data sources: Two independent reviewers systematically searched five databases (i.e. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) and the reference lists of relevant articles. Review methods: This systematic review was conducted in line with the Center for Reviews and Dissemination Handbook and reported according to the PRISMA guideline. Only original research focusing on determinants of fall prevention implementation in residential care facilities was included. We used the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool for quality appraisal. Thematic analysis was performed for qualitative data; quantitative data were analyzed descriptively. To synthesize the results, we used the framework of Grol and colleagues that describes six healthcare levels wherein implementation barriers and facilitators can be identified. Results: We found eight relevant studies, identifying 44 determinants that influence implementation. Of these, 17 were facilitators and 27 were barriers. Results indicated that the social and organizational levels have the greatest number of influencing factors (9 and 14, respectively), whereas resident and economical/political levels have the least (3 and 4, respectively). The most cited facilitators were good communication and facility equipment availability, while staff feeling overwhelmed, helpless, frustrated and concerned about their ability to control fall management, staffing issues, limited knowledge and skills (i.e., general clinical skill deficiencies, poor fall management skills or lack of computer skills); and poor communication were the most cited barriers. Conclusion: Successful implementation of fall prevention depends on many factors across different healthcare levels. The focus of implementation interventions, however, should be on modifiable barriers and facilitators such as communication, knowledge, and skills. Effective fall prevention must consist of multifactorial interventions that target each resident's fall risk profile, and should be tailored to overcome context-specific barriers and put into action the identified facilitators.© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.What is already known about the topic? Multifactorial interventions, tailored to each resident's fall risk profile, can reduce the number of falls and recurrent fallers under highly controlled circumstances, but seems to be ineffective under "real-world" conditions, presumably due to poor implementation.Successful implementation of complex, multifactorial interventions in clinical practice involves a tailored, multifaceted approach based on a good understanding of barriers and facilitators for implementation. No reviews exist that comprehensively summarize the evidence on fall prevention implementation barriers and facilitators in residential care settings. What this paper addsSeventeen facilitators and 27 barriers that ...

show abstract

A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews

Cited by 853 publications

References 37 publications

Social health and nutrition impacts of community kitchens: a systematic review

Social health and nutrition impacts of community kitchens: a systematic review

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

Implementation of fall prevention in residential care facilities: A systematic review of barriers and facilitators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About