Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29365123›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2018

How far is mixed methods research in the field of health policy and systems in Africa? A scoping review.

M De Allegri, I Sieleunou, G A Abiiro, V Ridde

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Mixed methods research in complementary and alternative medicine: a scoping review.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Towards an Explanation of the Social Value of Health Systems: An Interpretive Synthesis.International journal of health policy and management · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

M De AllegriInstitute of Public Health, Medical Faculty, Heidelberg University, INF 103.3, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
I SieleunouIRSPUM, Preventive and Social Medicine, 7101, avenue du Parc, Montréal-Québec, H3N 1X9, Canada.
G A AbiiroDepartment of Planning, Faculty of Planning and Land Management, University for Development Studies, Post Office Box UPW 3, Wa, Upper West Region, Ghana.
V RiddeIRSPUM, Preventive and Social Medicine, 7101, avenue du Parc, Montréal-Québec, H3N 1X9, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Both the academic and the policy community are calling for wider application of mixed methods research, suggesting that combined use of quantitative and qualitative methods is most suitable to assess and understand the complexities of health interventions. In spite of recent growth in mixed methods studies, limited efforts have been directed towards appraising and synthetizing to what extent and how mixed methods have been applied specifically to Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed at filling this gap in knowledge, by exploring the scope and quality of mixed methods research in the African context. We conducted a scoping review applying the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and modified by Levac et al. to identify and extract data from relevant studies published between 1950 and 2013. We limited our search to peer-reviewed HPSR publications in English, which combined at least one qualitative and one quantitative method and focused on Africa. Among the 105 studies that were retained for data extraction, over 60% were published after 2010. Nearly 50% of all studies addressed topics relevant to Health Systems, while Health Policy and Health Outcomes studies accounted respectively for 40% and 10% of all publications. The quality of the application of mixed methods varied greatly across studies, with a relatively small proportion of studies stating clearly defined research questions and differentiating quantitative and qualitative elements, including sample sizes and analytical approaches. The methodological weaknesses observed could be linked to the paucity of specific training opportunities available to people interested in applying mixed methods to HPSR in LMICs as well as to the limitations on word limit, scope and peer-review processes at the journals levels. Increasing training opportunities and enhancing journal flexibility may result in more and better quality mixed methods publications.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareDeveloping CountriesHealth PolicyHealth Services ResearchAfricaHumansPoverty

Identifiers

PMID29365123
PMCPMC5886233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.