4.6 Review

The state of mixed methods research in nursing: A focused mapping review and synthesis

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
卷 76, 期 11, 页码 2798-2809

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jan.14479

关键词

focus mapping review and synthesis; mixed methods; nursing; research

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To consider the scope and quality of mixed methods research in nursing. Design Focused mapping review and synthesis (FMRS). Data sources Five purposively selected journals:International Journal of Nursing Studies,Journal of Nursing Scholarship,Journal of Advanced Nursing,Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, andJournal of Mixed Methods Research. Review methods In the target journals, titles and abstracts from papers published between 2015-2018 were searched for the words or derivative words 'mixed methods'. Additional keyword searches were undertaken using each journal's search tool. We included studies that investigated nursing and reported to use a mixed methods approach. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were read in full and information was extracted onto a predetermined pro forma. Findings across journals were then synthesized to illustrate the current state of mixed methods research in nursing. Results We located 34 articles that reported on mixed methods research, conducted across 18 countries. Articles differed significantly both within and across journals in terms of conformity to a mixed methods approach. We assessed the studies for the quality of their reporting as regard the use of mixed methods. Nineteen studies were rated as satisfactory or good, with 15 rated as poorly described. Primarily, a poor rating was due to the absence of stating an underpinning methodological approach to the study and/or limited detail of a crucial integration phase. Conclusions Our FMRS revealed a paucity of published mixed methods research in the journals selected. When they are published, there are limitations in the detail given to the underpinning methodological approach and theoretical explanation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据