SynthesisJournal of advanced nursing2025
Mixed Methods Studies Using Secondary Analysis in Nursing and Midwifery: A Methodological Review.
Synthesis in Journal of advanced nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mixed Methods Research on Family Caregiving for Stroke Survivors: A Methodological Systematic Review.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Pooled it
- Tailoring Treatment for Substance Use Disorders in Older Adults: A Mixed-methods Study.Innovation in aging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo identify mixed methods studies in nursing and midwifery using secondary analysis and to examine their methodological characteristics.
designMethodological review.
methodsA systematic search was conducted to identify empirical mixed methods studies in nursing and midwifery that used secondary analysis. A data extraction sheet was developed based on previous methodological reviews of secondary analysis and mixed methods. DATA SOURCES: SCOPUS, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched from inception to March 10, 2023. Supplementary searches were conducted in two methodological journals and six nursing journals.
resultsA total of 26 mixed methods studies published between 2000 and 2022 were included in the review. Of these, only 13 studies explicitly mentioned the type of mixed methods design used. Twenty studies showed evidence of integration of the quantitative and qualitative components. Most of these studies integrated the components at the interpretation stage, whereas fewer integrated the components during data collection. None of the studies mentioned the rationale for using secondary analysis in the context of a mixed methods study.
conclusionThe included studies demonstrated fairly good reporting of mixed methods features, although they generally lacked a rationale for the use of secondary data. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Adequate reporting of mixed methods studies using secondary analysis is essential in order to allow readers to assess whether secondary analysis was appropriately incorporated into a mixed methods study and whether the potential of secondary analysis was fully exploited. IMPACT: This review provides a set of recommendations to transparently report information regarding the research process and results obtained in mixed methods studies using secondary analysis. REPORTING
methodItems relevant to methodological reviews included in the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) were considered for reporting the review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.