Letters
Systematic mixed studies reviews: Updating results on the reliability and efficiency of the mixed methods appraisal tool

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.08.010Get rights and content

Section snippets

Methods

To test the efficiency and reliability of the MMAT-v2011, we used it to appraise studies included in two systematic mixed studies reviews. The first dealt with the key processes associated with outcomes of organizational participatory research. The second explored the transitional care of patients with chronic conditions from the hospital to the home. Three graduate students received MMAT training and then used the tool to independently appraise (i) qualitative and MMS included in the first

Results

A total of 261 studies were appraised. The first review included 140 qualitative studies and 27 MMS. The second review included 72 RCTs and 22 NRS. No quantitative descriptive study was appraised. Overall, the average appraisal time per study was 11.3 minutes, with average number of minutes for mixed methods, qualitative research, NRS, and RCT being 18.7, 12.5, 8.4, and 7.4, respectively. The reliability of the MMAT varied by criterion, from fair to perfect (Souto et al., 2014). In particular,

Discussion and conclusion

These results confirm that the MMAT is an efficient tool, but suggest its reliability needs further improvement, particularly for two items including the sentence ‘appropriate consideration’. We noted that the independent reviewers understood this sentence in a different manner. A reviewer considered that ‘appropriate consideration’ was given when there were at least few details, whereas the other reviewer looked for a detailed description of specific strategies. In some articles reporting

Acknowledgments

Quan Nha Hong holds a PhD bursary from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Pierre Pluye and Isabelle Vedel hold Investigator Awards from the ‘Fonds de recherche du Québec santé’ (FRQS). The present work is supported by CIHR-funded systematic mixed studies reviews, and CIET-PRAM (Participatory Research at McGill) (http://pram.mcgill.ca/index.php).

Contributions: Rafaella Queiroga Souto and Pierre Pluye proposed an initial version of the paper. All authors contributed to the

Cited by (230)

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text