Qualitative and mixed methods in systematic reviews

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Gough, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITORIAL; HYPOTHESIS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCEDURES; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SCIENTIST; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; HUMAN; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

HUMANS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84952877030     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-015-0151-y     Document Type: Editorial

References (20)

1. Noblit G. Hare RD: meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park NY: Sage Publications; 1988.
2. Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:59.
3. Gough D, Elbourne D. Systematic research synthesis to inform policy, practice and democratic debate. Soc Pol Soc. 2002;2002:1.
4. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance 2015. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258
5. Candy B, Jone L, King M, Oliver S. Using qualitative evidence to help understand complex palliative care interventions: a novel evidence synthesis approach. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2014;4:Supp A41-A42.
6. Noyes J, Gough D, Lewin S, Mayhew A, Michie S, Pantoja T, et al. A research and development agenda for systematic reviews that ask complex questions about complex interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:11.
7. Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J. Introduction to systematic reviews. London: Sage; 2012.
8. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev. 2012;1:28.
9. Sandelowski M, Voils CJ, Leeman J, Crandlee JL. Mapping the mixed methods-mixed research synthesis terrain. J Mix Methods Res. 2012;6:4.
10. Thomas J, O'Mara-Eves A, Brunton G. Using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) in systematic reviews of complex interventions: a worked example. Syst Rev. 2014;3:67.
11. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:45.
12. Oliver S, Rees R, Clarke-Jones L, Milne R, Oakley AR, Gabbay J, et al. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Exp. 2008;11:72-84.
13. Booth A, Carroll C. How to build up the actionable knowledge base: the role of 'best fit' framework synthesis for studies of improvement in healthcare. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015. 2014-003642.
14. Brannen J. Mixed methods research: a discussion paper. NCRM Methods Review Papers, 2006. NCRM/005.
15. Creswell J. Mapping the developing landscape of mixed methods research. In: Teddlie C, Tashakkori A, editors. SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. New York: Sage; 2011.
16. Morse JM. Principles of mixed method and multi-method research design. In: Teddlie C, Tashakkori A, editors. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. London: Sage; 2003.
17. Pluye P, Hong QN. Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35:29-45.
18. Harden A, Thomas J. Mixed methods and systematic reviews: examples and emerging issues. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. Handbook of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2010. p. 749-74.
19. Pawson R. Evidenced-based policy: a realist perspective. London: Sage; 2006.
20. Gough D. Meta-narrative and realist reviews: guidance, rules, publication standards and quality appraisal. BMC Med. 2013;11:22.