A mixed-methods approach to systematic reviews

TLDR

Systematic reviews increasingly focus on single methods, creating a proliferation of syntheses that makes it hard for policymakers and practitioners to identify clear actions. Mixed‑methods systematic reviews are designed to resolve this problem by producing reviews directly relevant to decision makers. Following JBI guidelines, the approach first synthesizes each method separately, then combines them using a Bayesian translation of quantitative results into qualitative themes that are pooled with the qualitative synthesis.

Abstract

There are an increasing number of published single-method systematic reviews that focus on different types of evidence related to a particular topic. As policy makers and practitioners seek clear directions for decision-making from systematic reviews, it is likely that it will be increasingly difficult for them to identify 'what to do' if they are required to find and understand a plethora of syntheses related to a particular topic. Mixed-methods systematic reviews are designed to address this issue and have the potential to produce systematic reviews of direct relevance to policy makers and practitioners. On the basis of the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute International Mixed Methods Reviews Methodology Group in 2012, the Institute adopted a segregated approach to mixed-methods synthesis as described by Sandelowski et al., which consists of separate syntheses of each component method of the review. Joanna Briggs Institute's mixed-methods synthesis of the findings of the separate syntheses uses a Bayesian approach to translate the findings of the initial quantitative synthesis into qualitative themes and pooling these with the findings of the initial qualitative synthesis.