Evaluating Evidence: Defining Levels and Quality Using Critical Appraisal Mixed Methods Tools

Taylor, Ellen; Hignett, Sue

doi:10.1177/193758671400700310

Cited by 24 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…EBD is a recognized method of ensuring the quality of HCEs [ 45 ], although the method remains theoretical and has not been fully implemented in practice. In addition, the quality of the research in the area is still needed of a rigorous appraisal [ 46 ]. EBD can be defined as a critical and reflective process in which decisions about the building environment are based on credible research results, evaluations and systematically analyzed experience from existing environments that consider the user experience, in particular [ 17 , 18 , 29 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shared decision making in designing new healthcare environments—time to begin improving quality

Elf

Frost

Lindahl

et al. 2015

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSuccessful implementation of new methods and models of healthcare to achieve better patient outcomes and safe, person-centered care is dependent on the physical environment of the healthcare architecture in which the healthcare is provided. Thus, decisions concerning healthcare architecture are critical because it affects people and work processes for many years and requires a long-term financial commitment from society. In this paper, we describe and suggest several strategies (critical factors) to promote shared-decision making when planning and designing new healthcare environments.DiscussionThis paper discusses challenges and hindrances observed in the literature and from the authors extensive experiences in the field of planning and designing healthcare environments. An overview is presented of the challenges and new approaches for a process that involves the mutual exchange of knowledge among various stakeholders. Additionally, design approaches that balance the influence of specific and local requirements with general knowledge and evidence that should be encouraged are discussed.SummaryWe suggest a shared-decision making and collaborative planning and design process between representatives from healthcare, construction sector and architecture based on evidence and end-users’ perspectives. If carefully and systematically applied, this approach will support and develop a framework for creating high quality healthcare environments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shared decision making in designing new healthcare environments—time to begin improving quality

Elf

Frost

Lindahl

et al. 2015

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Apart from the latter being a validated tool, it was considered both appropriate and easily interpretable and subsequently also proved its feasibility and high agreement between study reviewers. As for the methodological quality assessments of quantitative and mixed methods studies, we used the open source MMAT,17 which represents one of the most consistent methods to evaluate different study types 93. The AMSTAR criteria16 were used for reviews,94 95 while one opinion paper that was included in this SLR was not scored for its methodological quality as, to the best of our knowledge, there are no validated tools for that purpose.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of generic core competences of health professionals in rheumatology: a systematic literature review informing the 2019 EULAR recommendations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo identify generic competences on the desired knowledge, skills and of health professionals in rheumatology (HPRs) to inform the respective EULAR recommendations.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed on the generic core competences (defined as knowledge, skills or attitudes) of HPRs (nurses, physical therapists (PTs) or occupational therapists (OTs)). Literature was obtained from electronic databases, published EULAR recommendations and via personal communication with representatives of national rheumatology societies and experts in the field. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies were included, and their methodological quality was scored using appropriate instruments.ResultsFrom 766 references reviewed, 79 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twenty studies addressed competences of multiple HPRs: 15 were of qualitative design, 1 quantitative, 1 mixed-methods, 2 systematic reviews and 1 opinion paper. The methodological quality of most studies was medium to high. Five studies concerned the development of a comprehensive set of competences. Key competences included: basic knowledge of rheumatic diseases, holistic approach to patient management, effective communication with colleagues and patients and provision of education to patients. The proposed competences were confirmed in studies focusing on one or more specific competences, on a rheumatic disease or on a specific profession (nurses, PTs or OTs).ConclusionGeneric competences were identified for HPRs. Data were mostly derived from qualitative studies. All identified studies varied and were at national level, highlighting the need for the harmonisation of HPR competences across Europe. These findings underpin the development of EULAR recommendations for the core competences of HPRs.

show abstract

“…The MMAT was specifically designed for use in systematic mixed studies reviews and allows the appraisal of quantitative, qualitative and mixed method papers using one tool [38]. This tool has demonstrated good reliability and efficiency and was shown to be the most consistent when compared with other tools which allow appraisal of multiple study types [39,40]. It has also been used widely in other systematic mixed studies reviews [41][42][43][44][45].…”

Section: Quality Appraisalmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of assistive technology use for students with disabilities in higher education: a systematic review

McNicholl

Casey

Desmond

et al. 2019

Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This systematic review examines the impact of assistive technology (AT) on educational and psychosocial outcomes for students with disabilities (SWDs) in higher education. Materials and methods: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method studies were identified through systematic searches of five databases: PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC and Web of Science (Social Science Citation Index). The search was conducted in January 2018. Thematic synthesis was carried out to collate findings across papers and the methodological quality of included papers was assessed using a Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Results: Twenty-six papers were included for analysis. Four analytic themes were identified; "AT as an enabler of academic engagement"; "barriers to effective AT use can hinder academic engagement"; "the transformative possibilities of AT from a psychological perspective"; and "AT as an enabler of participation". Conclusions: This systematic review identifies that AT can promote educational, psychological and social benefits for SWD. However, AT users and AT officers must be aware of certain factors, such as inadequate AT training, inadequacies of devices, availability of external support and the challenge of negotiating multiple information sources, can hinder effective AT use and thus restrict engagement in the higher education environment. Future AT practices should focus on harnessing the potential of mainstream devices as AT for all students, thus facilitating inclusion and reducing stigma. ä IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION Students with disabilities face academic, psychological and social challenges within the higher education environment. Assistive technology (AT) use can enable academic engagement and social participation and be transformative from a psychological perspective. Disability support staff in higher education should ensure that the AT needs of students with disabilities are met in order to enhance the educational experience. Harnessing the potential of mainstream devices as AT for all students will facilitate inclusion and reduce stigma.

show abstract

Evaluating Evidence: Defining Levels and Quality Using Critical Appraisal Mixed Methods Tools

Cited by 24 publications

References 19 publications

Shared decision making in designing new healthcare environments—time to begin improving quality

Shared decision making in designing new healthcare environments—time to begin improving quality

Development of generic core competences of health professionals in rheumatology: a systematic literature review informing the 2019 EULAR recommendations

The impact of assistive technology use for students with disabilities in higher education: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About