[A Brief Introduction to Mixed Methods Systematic Review (MMSR)].

Q3 Nursing Journal of Nursing Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.6224/JN.202306_70(3).10
Chung-Ying Lin, Wen-Hua Lin, Bih-Ching Shu
{"title":"[A Brief Introduction to Mixed Methods Systematic Review (MMSR)].","authors":"Chung-Ying Lin,&nbsp;Wen-Hua Lin,&nbsp;Bih-Ching Shu","doi":"10.6224/JN.202306_70(3).10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Systematic reviews provide important empirical evidence for healthcare providers to make the best clinical decisions. While qualitative research provides subjective information on the human experience, quantitative research may be used to provide quantified evaluations of interventions. To overcome the lack of objectivity in qualitative research and of context considerations in quantitative research, recent efforts have focused on developing mixed-method approaches that combine meta-analysis (quantitative systematic reviews) and meta-synthesis (qualitative systematic reviews). This new idea may help conceptualize studied phenomena more thoroughly. However, the typology remains inconsistent and the currently proposed approaches lack unified guidance and principles. In this paper, \"mixed methods systematic review\", a term promoted by the Joanna Briggs Institute, is used to indicate the newly developed systematic review. The use of systematic review in quantitative research and in qualitative research and the use of mixed methods systematic review are introduced chronologically, with an emphasis on procedures, examples, and quality appraisal tools. The concepts and concrete procedures for integrating results from different research method are presented for researchers and healthcare providers to allow them to better understand this approach and explore related phenomena more thoroughly.</p>","PeriodicalId":35672,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6224/JN.202306_70(3).10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Systematic reviews provide important empirical evidence for healthcare providers to make the best clinical decisions. While qualitative research provides subjective information on the human experience, quantitative research may be used to provide quantified evaluations of interventions. To overcome the lack of objectivity in qualitative research and of context considerations in quantitative research, recent efforts have focused on developing mixed-method approaches that combine meta-analysis (quantitative systematic reviews) and meta-synthesis (qualitative systematic reviews). This new idea may help conceptualize studied phenomena more thoroughly. However, the typology remains inconsistent and the currently proposed approaches lack unified guidance and principles. In this paper, "mixed methods systematic review", a term promoted by the Joanna Briggs Institute, is used to indicate the newly developed systematic review. The use of systematic review in quantitative research and in qualitative research and the use of mixed methods systematic review are introduced chronologically, with an emphasis on procedures, examples, and quality appraisal tools. The concepts and concrete procedures for integrating results from different research method are presented for researchers and healthcare providers to allow them to better understand this approach and explore related phenomena more thoroughly.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[混合方法系统评价(MMSR)简介]。
系统评价为医疗保健提供者做出最佳临床决策提供了重要的经验证据。虽然定性研究提供了关于人类经验的主观信息,但定量研究可用于对干预措施进行量化评估。为了克服定性研究缺乏客观性和定量研究缺乏背景考虑,最近的努力集中在发展混合方法方法,结合元分析(定量系统评价)和元综合(定性系统评价)。这种新观点可能有助于更彻底地将所研究的现象概念化。然而,类型学仍然不一致,目前提出的方法缺乏统一的指导和原则。本文使用Joanna Briggs研究所提出的术语“混合方法系统评价”(mixed methods system review)来表示新发展的系统评价。系统评价在定量研究和定性研究中的应用,以及混合方法系统评价的使用,按时间顺序介绍,重点是程序、例子和质量评价工具。为研究人员和医疗保健提供者提供了整合不同研究方法结果的概念和具体步骤,使他们能够更好地理解这种方法,并更彻底地探索相关现象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Nursing
Journal of Nursing Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
[A Guide to Network Meta-Analysis Using Generative AI and No-Code Tools]. [A Study on the Life Attitudes, Fear of Death, and Dying Care Abilities of Nursing Assistants in Long-Term Care Institutions]. [Analysis of the Effectiveness of a Fall Prevention Program Incorporating an Interprofessional Team Collaboration Model on Reducing Fall Risk in Elderly Living in Long-term Care Facilities]. [Application of Artificial Intelligence Models in Nursing Research]. [Caregiving Experience With a Young Father With Multiple Myeloma Undergoing Renal Dialysis and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1