ArticleJMIR research protocols2026
Updating the Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) Reporting Guidelines: Protocol for a Methodological Review and Modified Delphi Process.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sleep disturbance in CKD: patient‑prioritized outcomes, management, and perceptions - a multicenter mixed-methods study in Australia.Renal failure · 2026Article
- What is public health advocacy? Australasian practitioner perspectives on defining the field and identifying effective practice and required competencies.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Factors Associated with Extreme Waiting Times for Child Developmental Diagnostic Assessments: A Mixed-Methods Service Evaluation in Sydney.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Work Stress, Quality of Work Life, and Burnout Among Registered Nurses in Public Hospitals in Samut Songkhram Province, Thailand: An Explanatory Sequential Mixed-Methods Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Feasibility of decentralized cervical cancer survivorship care at district hospitals in Rwanda: a multi-site pilot implementation study.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Ambivalent acceptance of active exoskeletons in long-term care: between perceived task-specific support and practical constraints.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Beyond the sugar tax: public acceptability of a comprehensive food policy bundle in urban Ghana.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn mixed methods research (MMR), researchers combine elements of qualitative and quantitative methodologies, methods of data collection and analysis, viewpoints, and integration procedures to gain a deeper understanding of what is being studied, design culturally specific tools, and explore the conditions under which health care interventions succeed or fail. Integration is considered the hallmark of MMR and can occur at various levels, such as sampling, data collection, and analysis. MMR is particularly useful for investigating complex, multilevel programs and interventions and is well-suited to address research problems involving knowledge translation, program evaluations, or comparisons of therapeutic interventions. Although there are many potential benefits of mixed methods in health research, the extent to which mixed methods studies implement integration remains limited, with this specific gap persisting for almost 20 years. The Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) reporting guidelines were developed in 2008 to help improve the quality of reporting in mixed methods reports and articles. Since then, the field of mixed methods has evolved rapidly, and the guideline no longer reflects current practices and innovations.
objectiveThe objective of this study is to develop an updated GRAMMS 2.0 guideline. This project aims to develop the GRAMMS 2.0 guideline and checklist to improve consistency, transparency, and quality of reporting on studies that use mixed methods in health services research. The specific research objectives of this protocol are to (1) examine the extent of mixed methods methodological literature and identify relevant reporting quality criteria for inclusion in GRAMMS 2.0 (ie, a methodological review), and (2) using the results of the first objective, prioritize the components of the updated GRAMMS 2.0 (ie, modified Delphi approach and consensus meeting).
methodsThis study will follow established methodological frameworks for reporting guideline development and will include a methodological review followed by a modified Delphi process.
resultsThe project has received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in April 2025.
conclusionsThe GRAMMS 2.0 guideline will improve the consistency, transparency, and quality of reporting of mixed methods studies by researchers and multiple knowledge users in policy and practice. Peer reviewers and editors may also use GRAMMS 2.0 to improve the review of manuscripts involving MMR. Ultimately, the updated guideline will increase the clarity of mixed methods research findings, thereby improving their potential transferability to practice and facilitating efficient use of new results in mixed methods in health research, bringing better returns on research investments. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/82364.
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.