Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT)

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice - Tập 24 Số 3 - Trang 459-467 - 2018
Quan Nha Hong1, Araceli Gonzalez‐Reyes1, Pierre Pluye1
1Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada

Tóm tắt

AbstractRationale, aims, and objectivesSystematic reviews combining qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed methods studies are increasingly popular because of their potential for addressing complex interventions and phenomena, specifically for assessing and improving clinical practice. A major challenge encountered with this type of review is the appraisal of the quality of individual studies given the heterogeneity of the study designs. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was developed to help overcome this challenge. The aim of this study was to explore the usefulness of the MMAT by seeking the views and experiences of researchers who have used it.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative descriptive study using semistructured interviews with MMAT users. A purposeful sample was drawn from the researchers who had previously contacted the developer of the MMAT, and those who have published a systematic review for which they had used the MMAT. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by 2 coders using thematic analysis.ResultsTwenty participants from 8 countries were interviewed. Thirteen themes were identified and grouped into the 2 dimensions of usefulness, ie, utility and usability. The themes related to utility concerned the coverage, completeness, flexibility, and other utilities of the tool. Those regarding usability were related to the learnability, efficiency, satisfaction, and errors that could be made due to difficulties understanding or selecting the items to appraise.ConclusionsOn the basis of the results of this study, we make several recommendations for improving the MMAT. This will contribute to greater usefulness of the MMAT.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1007/s11135-011-9538-6

10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182440

Dixon‐Woods M, 2004, Integrative approaches to qualitative and quantitative evidence

10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.01.009

Heyvaert M, 2016, Using Mixed Methods Research Synthesis for Literature Reviews: The Mixed Methods Research Synthesis Approach

10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x

10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2

Harden A, 2012, An Introduction to Systematic Reviews, 153

Burls A, 2009, What is Critical Appraisal?

10.1002/9780470754887.ch5

West SL, 2002, Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence

Bai A, 2012, Quality Assessment Tools Project Report

DeeksJJ DinnesJ D'AmicoR et al.Evaluating non‐randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess.2003;7(27):iii‐iix.https://doi.org/10.3310/hta7270

10.1177/1558689813479449

10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.007

Katrak P, 2004, A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools, BMC Med Res Methodol, 4

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.008

10.1093/ije/dym018

10.1186/s13643-017-0604-6

10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.07.002

10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.08.010

Pluye P, Proposal: A mixed methods appraisal tool for systematic mixed studies reviews

10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G

10.1002/nur.20362

10.1186/1471-2288-9-52

10.1093/acref/9780199976720.001.0001

10.1177/160940690600500107

Nielsen J, 1994, Usability Engineering

10.1155/2014/694804

Schmuckler MA, 2001, What is ecological validity? A dimensional analysis, Inf Dent, 2, 419

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.010

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.09.013

10.1186/1741-7015-8-24

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.10.016

10.1177/160940690200100107

10.1002/9780470712184

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.014

10.1177/1049732312452937

10.1007/s11135-016-0345-y

10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238

10.1080/08870440903194015

10.1016/j.nepr.2014.01.005

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Tập 24 Số 3

459-467

Thông tin tác giả