Abstract
Background: Inadequate justification for using mixed methods and inadequate data integration
compromises the rigor of mixed methods studies, and data integration remains a challenge for
nurse researchers.
Objectives: To determine the 5-year prevalence of mixed methods research in nursing journals
and to determine the extent of integration of qualitative and quantitative findings.
Methods: Ten journals were hand searched and additional search conducted within three
databases. Prevalence was calculated by counting the number of published mixed methods
studies divided by the number of published studies over five years. Three reviewers
independently performed methodological assessment using a checklist based on guidelines by
expert methodologists.
Results: Prevalence of mixed methods studies was 1.89%. Concerning methodological
assessment, of 175 studies, 29% did not provide an explicit label of the study design and four
studies incorrectly labeled the design. In total, 31% of studies did not justify using mixed
methods, 95% did not identify the research paradigm, and 78% did not state the weight given to
individual phases. The extent of data integration was 73%, but 83% of studies integrated data
using narrative summaries with integration occurring at the interpretation (69.8%). Few studies
used joint displays (10.9%), transformation (3.1%), and triangulation (1.6%) for data integration.
Discussion: Mixed methods research is still in its infancy in nursing, and researchers encounter
challenges during its conduct, analysis, and reporting. There is a need to determine researchers‘
attitudes and challenges towards using mixed methods and educate them about advanced mixed
methods. Emphasis should be placed on use of advanced data integration methods so that the
rigor and quality of mixed research can be enhanced in nursing research.
compromises the rigor of mixed methods studies, and data integration remains a challenge for
nurse researchers.
Objectives: To determine the 5-year prevalence of mixed methods research in nursing journals
and to determine the extent of integration of qualitative and quantitative findings.
Methods: Ten journals were hand searched and additional search conducted within three
databases. Prevalence was calculated by counting the number of published mixed methods
studies divided by the number of published studies over five years. Three reviewers
independently performed methodological assessment using a checklist based on guidelines by
expert methodologists.
Results: Prevalence of mixed methods studies was 1.89%. Concerning methodological
assessment, of 175 studies, 29% did not provide an explicit label of the study design and four
studies incorrectly labeled the design. In total, 31% of studies did not justify using mixed
methods, 95% did not identify the research paradigm, and 78% did not state the weight given to
individual phases. The extent of data integration was 73%, but 83% of studies integrated data
using narrative summaries with integration occurring at the interpretation (69.8%). Few studies
used joint displays (10.9%), transformation (3.1%), and triangulation (1.6%) for data integration.
Discussion: Mixed methods research is still in its infancy in nursing, and researchers encounter
challenges during its conduct, analysis, and reporting. There is a need to determine researchers‘
attitudes and challenges towards using mixed methods and educate them about advanced mixed
methods. Emphasis should be placed on use of advanced data integration methods so that the
rigor and quality of mixed research can be enhanced in nursing research.
Originalsprog | Engelsk |
---|---|
Tidsskrift | Nursing Research |
Vol/bind | 68 |
Udgave nummer | 6 |
Sider (fra-til) | 464-472 |
Antal sider | 9 |
ISSN | 0029-6562 |
DOI | |
Status | Udgivet - 1 nov. 2019 |
Emneord
- Sygdom, sundhedsvidenskab og sygepleje