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

Article


Irvine, F., Clark, M., Efstathiou, N., Herber, O., Howroyd, F., Gratrix, L., Sammut, D., Trumm, A., Hanssen, T., Taylor, J. and Bradbury-Jones, C. 2020. The state of mixed methods research in nursing: a focused mapping review and synthesis. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 76 (11), pp. 2798-2809. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14479
TypeArticle
TitleThe state of mixed methods research in nursing: a focused mapping review and synthesis
AuthorsIrvine, F., Clark, M., Efstathiou, N., Herber, O., Howroyd, F., Gratrix, L., Sammut, D., Trumm, A., Hanssen, T., Taylor, J. and Bradbury-Jones, C.
Abstract

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, and Journal 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.

Keywordsfocus mapping review and synthesis; mixed methods; nursing; research
Sustainable Development Goals3 Good health and well-being
Middlesex University ThemeHealth & Wellbeing
PublisherWiley
JournalJournal of Advanced Nursing
ISSN0309-2402
Electronic1365-2648
Publication dates
Online08 Sep 2020
PrintNov 2020
Publication process dates
Submitted06 Nov 2019
Accepted14 Jul 2020
Deposited10 Jan 2025
Output statusPublished
Publisher's version
License
File Access Level
Open
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14479
PubMed ID32896959
Web of Science identifierWOS:000566816600001
LanguageEnglish
Permalink -

https://repository.mdx.ac.uk/item/104442

  • 3
    total views
  • 2
    total downloads
  • 3
    views this month
  • 1
    downloads this month

Export as