Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT )
Tóm tắt
Systematic 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.
We 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.
Twenty 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.
On 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
Dixon‐Woods M, 2004, Integrative approaches to qualitative and quantitative evidence
Heyvaert M, 2016, Using Mixed Methods Research Synthesis for Literature Reviews: The Mixed Methods Research Synthesis Approach
Harden A, 2012, An Introduction to Systematic Reviews, 153
Burls A, 2009, What is Critical Appraisal?
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
Katrak P, 2004, A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools, BMC Med Res Methodol, 4
Pluye P, Proposal: A mixed methods appraisal tool for systematic mixed studies reviews
Nielsen J, 1994, Usability Engineering
Schmuckler MA, 2001, What is ecological validity? A dimensional analysis, Inf Dent, 2, 419