The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) was developed for critically appraising different study designs. This study aimed to improve the content validity of three of the five categories of studies in the MMAT by identifying relevant methodological criteria for appraising the quality of qualitative, survey, and mixed methods studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: First, we performed a literature review to identify critical appraisal tools and extract methodological criteria. Second, we conducted a two-round modified e-Delphi technique. We asked three method-specific panels of experts to rate the relevance of each criterion on a five-point Likert scale. RESULTS: A total of 383 criteria were extracted from 18 critical appraisal tools and a literature review on the quality of mixed methods studies, and 60 were retained. In the first and second rounds of the e-Delphi, 73 and 56 experts participated, respectively. Consensus was reached for six qualitative criteria, eight survey criteria, and seven mixed methods criteria. These results led to modifications of eight of the 11 MMAT (version 2011) criteria. Specifically, we reformulated two criteria, replaced four, and removed two. Moreover, we added six new criteria. CONCLUSION: Results of this study led to improve the content validity of this tool, revise it, and propose a new version (MMAT version 2018).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“As a result, this review employed Hong et al.’s [75] Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), as the instrument provides reviewers with a single tool to assess quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research, and has shown improved content validity over recent years [76].”
From The Mental Health of Elite-Level Coaches: A Systematic Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as [76]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Akl, E. A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., Norris, S., Falck-Ytter, Y., Glasziou, P., & deBeer, H. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 · Cited by 10,681 · cited 1×
“Several approaches for rating the overall quality of evidence have been developed, such as Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) [38] and GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) [39].”
MethodAchieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices
Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12117 · Cited by 7,219 · cited 2×
“Also, Fetters, Curry, and Creswell [31] identified three integration levels (design, methods, and interpretation/reporting).”
BackgroundDetermination and Quantification Of Content Validity
LYNN, M. R. (1986) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017 · Cited by 6,775 · cited 2×
“78 or higher were indicative of good content validity [48].”
BackgroundResearch guidelines for the Delphi survey technique
Hasson, F. (2000) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01567.x · Cited by 5,951 · cited 1×
“The Delphi technique is used to reach consensus among a group of experts [20] and is particularly suitable to build consensus on issues that have limited or contradictory evidence [21].”
MethodIs the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations
Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.20199 · Cited by 5,273 · cited 1×
“Polit, Beck, and Owen [49] recommended having 8 to 12 experts for the first round.”
BackgroundPrimary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research
GLASS, G. V. (1976) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x005010003 · Cited by 4,890 · cited 1×
“Initial developments mainly focused on meta-analysis for addressing questions on the effectiveness of interventions, and the emphasis was on randomized controlled trials [2,3].”
MethodSystematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-5664 · Cited by 4,081
The Handbook of Research Synthesis.
Howel, D., Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1995) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533295 · Cited by 3,657
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 701–800 of 1,001
Athifa, A., Mohamed, Y., Overmars, I., Danchin, M. H., & Kaufman, J. (2025) · Cancer Causes & Control · doi:10.1007/s10552-025-02027-x · Cited by 1
Characteristics of Optimal Cancer Referrals Made by Primary Care Clinicians: Scoping Review
Olakotan, O. O., Yargawa, J., Moreland, J., Smith, C. F., Nicholson, B. D., Millar, A. D., & Black, G. B. (2025) · Cancer Control · doi:10.1177/10732748251359405 · Cited by 1
“16 The quality of each paper was assessed using the yes-or-no checklist, and the percentages of their results were calculated as shown in Online Appendix A. Results from the quality assessment show that twelve papers are of high study quality, while the remaining paper has an acceptable study…”
DeVuono, I. R., Posa, S., Lafond, N. M. C., Woodley, B. D., Coroiu, A., Chaiton, M., Evans, W. K., Veldhuizen, S., Zawertailo, L. A., Melamed, O. C., et al. (2025) · Cancer Control · doi:10.1177/10732748251359835 · Cited by 2
Montveneur, M., Daniel, G., Delannoy, P.-J., Michalewska, K., Ramos‐Pascual, S., Saffarini, M., & Bouchareine, N. (2025) · Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2025.08.015 · Cited by 1
Immersive technology applications in radiation protection for fluoroscopy - A systematic review
Videira, S., Rodrigues, M. A., Santos, J., & da Silva (2025) · Radiography · doi:10.1016/j.radi.2025.103179 · Cited by 2
Nygård, S., Nysæter, M. K., Ferreira, L. R., Frøyland, L. R., & Kvalem, I. L. (2025) · Trauma Violence & Abuse · doi:10.1177/15248380251375912 · Cited by 3
Arroyo-Bello, E., González-Toledo, B., Abad-Valle, J., Rodríguez-Gómez, P., & Ramon, M. (2025) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.94259 · Cited by 4
Dong, J., He, Y., & Tang, L. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/73093 · Cited by 1
“The methodological characteristics of the included studies were descriptively assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [29].”
Gunarathna, S. P., Hwang, Y., & Lee, J.-S. (2025) · Antibiotics · doi:10.3390/antibiotics14111072 · Cited by 1
“It covers five study types: qualitative research, randomized and nonrandomized trials, quantitative descriptive studies, and mixed-methods studies [20].”
Kalyani, B., Baretto, J. S., Shiralashetti, I., Shiralashetti, I., Kottalagi, I., Chiraladinni, U., Honakeri, S., Chavadannavar, M. P., Deepa, N. R., & Umar, M. (2025) · International Journal of Reproduction Contraception Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20253544 · Cited by 1
Afolabi, O. A., Abel, C., Dabar, A. M., Oveh, R. O., Ibraheem, S. A., Sam-Agudu, N. A., Tantawi, M. E., Salako, A. O., Eleje, G. U., Lusher, J. M., et al. (2025) · Frontiers in Oral Health · doi:10.3389/froh.2025.1592482 · Cited by 1
Bibi, R., Hachani, M., Masini, A., Conti, A. A., Cangelosi, G., Russotto, S., Barone‐Adesi, F., & Panella, M. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm14217833 · Cited by 1
“The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) is a validated critical appraisal tool specifically designed to evaluate empirical studies and also mixed-method studies [20].”
Wexler, S. G., & Walshe, C. (2025) · Palliative Care and Social Practice · doi:10.1177/26323524251389218 · Cited by 1
Jonas, V. (2025) · African Journal of Empirical Research · doi:10.51867/ajernet.6.4.81 · Cited by 1
“The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) was developed for critically appraising different study designs based on criteria such as clarity of research design, sampling technique, data collection method, analytical correctness, and reporting transparency (Bartlett et al., 2019).”
Parr, J., Chen, Y.-F., Damery, S., Chaudhuri, P., & Grove, A. (2025) · Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2025.106055 · Cited by 1
Justin, P., Fournier, V., Naeyaert, A., Laroussi‐Libeault, L., Duprez, C., Antoine, P., & Lamore, K. (2025) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.70519 · Cited by 1
Nsobundu, C., Nmadu, Y. W., Wagle, N. S., Aremu, O. G., Eruaga, A., Mwintshi, N. D., Salis, M. O., Foster, M., Smith, M. L., & Ory, M. G. (2025) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1588457 · Cited by 1
Zuo, P., Gowing, A., Silva, A. P. D., & Minas, H. (2025) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-025-03006-8 · Cited by 1
“The 2018 version was modified from the previous 2009 version through a two-round e-Delphi process, which improved its content validity [49].”
Rengifo, J. C. R. (2025) · Cultura y Droga · doi:10.17151/culdr.2025.30.39.8 · Cited by 1
Kharchenko, O. Y., & Semerikov, S. O. (2025) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-025-01079-0 · Cited by 1
“Instead, we adapted quality criteria from the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [8, 10], focusing on clarity of objectives, appropriateness of methodology, and coherence of findings.”
Advancing the Classification of Mixed Methods Research Questions
Younas, A., & Fàbregues, S. (2026) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/15586898251413451 · Cited by 5
Self-citationKamble, M. W., Dawe, J., & Bunning, K. (2026) · Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities · doi:10.1111/jar.70171 · Cited by 1
“The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT, version 2018, Hong, Fàbregues, et al. 2018), which is a widely used tool (Guetterman et al. 2022) with proven psychometric properties (Hong, Gonzalez-Reyes, and Pluye 2018; Hong et al. 2019; Souto et al. 2015), was used to assess quality and risk of bias.”
Chirico, I., Trolese, S., Esposti, V. D., Veronese, G., Cavazzoni, F., & Chattat, R. (2026) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-025-08781-0 · Cited by 1
“The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using a Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool [MMAT] (Hong et al., 2019 ), a critical appraisal tool for qualitative, quantitative research, and mixed methods studies.”
Ahmed, N., Dahal, M., Crocket, H. R., & Strasser, R. P. (2026) · Australian Journal of Rural Health · doi:10.1111/ajr.70142 · Cited by 3
Prasetia, A. R., Muchamad, W., Noraga, G. B., Suryadi, E., & Rasto (2026) · Novatio Journal of Management Technology and Innovation · doi:10.61978/novatio.v3i1.1259 · Cited by 3
“…and empirical studies with heterogeneous designs, methodological quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), which is explicitly developed to accommodate qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods evidence within a unified appraisal framework (Hong et al., 2018, 2019).”
P, K. P. K. (2026) · Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education · doi:10.30935/conmaths/17894 · Cited by 1
Sari, K. C. D. P., Alnaimi, S. J., Whittlesea, C., & Garfield, S. (2026) · Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy · doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2026.02.005 · Cited by 2
A systematic review of interventions for developing athletes as leaders
Butalia, R., Rupp, K.-S., Tuand, K., Boen, F., Steffens, N. K., Bongaerts, L., Loughead, T. M., Schepers, K., Hendrickx, M.-L., & Fransen, K. (2026) · International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1612197x.2025.2600983 · Cited by 2
Psychosocial interventions to support parenting among parents with cancer: A scoping review
Li, Y., Chong, M., Chui, P., Mo, L., Tao, L., Yuan, Y., Liao, R., Ling, H., & Zhong, Q. (2026) · Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.apjon.2026.100921 · Cited by 1
“33,34 Risk of bias was assessed with five relevant criteria for different study designs, where each criterion was converted into a percentage for comparison (e.g., if the study fulfilled one criterion out of five, the quality of the study was 20%, i.e., a high risk of bias).”
A systematic review of the aetiology and presentation of stunting diseases in broiler chickens
Hsieh, S.-Y., Sheridan, P., Smyth, V. J., & Kyriazakis, I. (2026) · Avian Pathology · doi:10.1080/03079457.2026.2632916 · Cited by 1
“…and bias of bird intervention studies (i.e. experimental inoculations), and the checklist of MMAT (Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, version 2018) (Hong et al. , 2018, 2019) was used to assess the methodological quality of quantitative descriptive studies (i.e. field case reports or observations)…”
Donoghue, J., Butt, F., Ley, C. D., Dracup, N., Staniszewska, S., Al-Khudairy, L., Smith, T. M., Parsons, J., Frost, H., Grove, A., et al. (2026) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-026-05195-y · Cited by 1
“However, we judged that it was appropriate to continue the quality appraisal based on guidance for the MMAT [36].”
Qiu, A., Yang, H., Guo, J., Hou, L., Hua, Y., Su, X., Lin, Y., & Zhu, J. (2026) · International Journal of Women s Health · doi:10.2147/ijwh.s578438 · Cited by 1
Amenah, D. B., Afaya, A., Klinogo, F., Daniels-Donkor, S. S., Nutor, J. J., Adawudu, E. A., Afaya, R. A., Robinson, K. N., Adatara, P., & Bam, V. B. (2026) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-25134-5 · Cited by 1
“The quality of the included studies were evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [21].”
Treating Dissociation in PTSD: A Meta-Analysis of Psychological Intervention Studies
Akoral, M., Swan, A. H., Rizeq, J., & Gumley, A. I. (2026) · Journal of Trauma & Dissociation · doi:10.1080/15299732.2026.2641635 · Cited by 2
“Harned et al. (2021) is a non-randomized controlled study, so its risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT; Hong et al., 2018), which showed good reliability and validity (Hong et al., 2019).”
Sánchez‐Marco, M., Montoro‐Pérez, N., Rubio‐Aparicio, M., Cabañero‐Martínez, M. J., Lozano‐Casanova, M., & Escribano, S. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112230 · Cited by 2
Ogden, D. J., Woodman, T., Plateau, C. R., & Barker, J. B. (2026) · International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1750984x.2026.2643699 · Cited by 2
Preventing homelessness in adults with acquired brain injury: a mixed-methods rapid review
Ducharme, R., Jubinville, W., Bottari, C. L., Salazar, A. P., Thibault, G., Wagner, V., Lamontagne, M., Pan, H., & Roy, L. (2026) · Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2026.102105 · Cited by 1
Hegarty, J. M., Cotter, L., Koç, İ., Brosnan, M. C., Clarke, V., Cliffe, K., Crowley, P., Harnett, G., Aoife, L., Leahy‐Warren, P., et al. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-106351 · Cited by 1
Ball, A., Rowe, A., Zieschank, K. L., & March, S. (2026) · Internet Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2026.100938 · Cited by 1
“The MMAT is a valid and reliable tool for mixed-method reviews, focusing on evaluating key methodological criteria (e.g., sample, sampling methods, and appropriate measurement) to critically assess methodological quality (Hong et al., 2019).”
Fellowes, A. F., Kloess, J. A., & Gladden, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1682155 · Cited by 2
Zhong, J., Pasha, V. C., Rice, B., Simpson, K. R., Spetz, J., Landstrom, G. L., & Lyndon, A. (2026) · MCN The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing · doi:10.1097/nmc.0000000000001206 · Cited by 1
The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Medication Management for Older Adults: A Systematic Review
Das, D. C., Rony, M. K. K., Dutta, S., Zujbe, M. S. A. Z., Bhattacharjee, T., Debnath, N., Maruf, S. A., Mortuza, C. G., Rahman, F., & Das, A. (2026) · Aging Medicine · doi:10.1002/agm2.70074 · Cited by 1
“The quality of all included studies was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) (Table 2), which provides a structured approach to assess methodological soundness [20].”
Aljaffary, A. A. (2026) · Journal of Family and Community Medicine · doi:10.4103/jfcm.jfcm_376_25 · Cited by 1
“[18] The tool is methodologically accepted, with expert‑validated content.”
Parks, T. H., Soukopová, J., Tóthová, D., Smaling, H. J. A., Murphy, A., Vidovićová, L., & Hlávka, J. P. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-102899 · Cited by 1
Mtetwa, N. B., & Kubheka, Z. F. (2026) · Jàmbá Journal of Disaster Risk Studies · doi:10.4102/jamba.v18i1.2023 · Cited by 1
“Finally, cyber-risk frameworks foreground information security, data protection and digital business continuity issues that have become increasingly relevant with the rise of e-commerce and remote operations (Hong et al. 2019; Ali et al. 2023; Kabanda, Tanner & Kent 2018).”
Desgroseilliers, J., Hamel, C., Ogundokun, K., & Latulippe, K. (2026) · Medicine Advances · doi:10.1002/med4.70065 · Cited by 1
Peer relationships and social networks in physical education: A scoping review
Fassaert, I., Schoonmade, L. J., van der Kamp, J., & de Bruijn, A. G. M. (2026) · European Physical Education Review · doi:10.1177/1356336x261445057 · Cited by 3
Adolescents’ experience of bracing for idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Dussi, G., Chiappinotto, S., Magro, G., Dentice, S., Moreal, C., Galazzi, A., Gasparroni, V., Rossettini, G., Zecchini, F., Schierano, S., et al. (2026) · Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2026.102132 · Cited by 1
Mcdonough, T., Griffin, E., Page, A., Ellett, L. M. K., Etherton‐Beer, C., & Johnson, J. L. (2026) · International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy · doi:10.1007/s11096-026-02166-4 · Cited by 1
“A critical appraisal was undertaken across all included papers by TM and AP independently using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool [34].”
Hood, A., & Elkins, G. R. (2026) · Journal of Psychedelic Studies · doi:10.1556/2054.2026.00507 · Cited by 2
Kassa, M. D., & Grace, J. M. (2026) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-025-13332-1 · Cited by 1
Svensson, J., Linnér, L., Ivarsson, A., & Stambulova, N. B. (2026) · International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1750984x.2026.2684923 · Cited by 1
Cardona, M. I., Gakoudis, P. N., Macijauskienė, J., & Thyrian, J. R. (2026) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1774318 · Cited by 1
Alam, S., & Chishti, M. Z. (2026) · Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642069.2026.2694023 · Cited by 1
“Grounded in the Industry 5.0 paradigm and GTL, the study employs a Delphi method for construct refinement and PLS-SEM for hypothesis testing (Hong et al., 2019).”
InfluentialRanasingha, N., Oni, H. T., & Islam, M. M. (2026) · Journal of Pregnancy · doi:10.1155/jp/6969976 · Cited by 1
Robertz, A.-C., Kantzer, A., Nyman, V., Törnhage, C., & Nilsson, S. (2026) · Global Advances in Integrative Medicine and Health · doi:10.1177/27536130261475332 · Cited by 1
“Given the study’s emphasis on experiential depth and integration, formal mixed methods reporting frameworks, such as the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), 35 were used as orienting references rather than as prescriptive templates.”
Ertem, G. S., Ergün, S., Kaynak, S., & Bayram, H. Ç. (2026) · Journal of Pediatric Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2026.08.022 · Cited by 1
HOW TO DO MIXED METHODS RESEARCH WITH INTEGRATION AT THE FOREFRONT
Fàbregues, S., Poth, C., Escalante‐Barrios, E. L., dos Santos, J. L. G., & Guetterman, T. C. (2026) · Texto & Contexto - Enfermagem · doi:10.1590/1980-265x-tce-2024-0331en · Cited by 1
Self-citationZupan, B., Dunn, L., Hackney, S., & Shamshidinova, B. (2021) · Brain Impairment · doi:10.1017/brimp.2020.24 · Cited by 1
Zhang, S., Fang, S., Wang, W., Li, Y., Zhang, X., Meng, X., Su, J.-P., Chang, A., & Sun, J. (2021) · Psychogeriatrics · doi:10.1111/psyg.12800 · Cited by 1
Parr, J., Chen, Y., Damery, S. L., & Grove, A. (2022) · NIHR Open Research · doi:10.3310/nihropenres.13307.1 · Cited by 1
Ribeiro, O. M. P. L., Trindade, L. D. L., Sousa, C. N., Pereira, S. C. D. A., Reis, A. C., Ventura‐Silva, J. M. A., & Faria, A. D. C. A. (2022) · Revista Baiana de Enfermagem · doi:10.18471/rbe.v36.48621 · Cited by 1
Promotive and Preventive Efforts of Health Workers in Reducing Stunting: A Scoping Review
Hanifah, L., & Astuti, A. W. (2023) · Jurnal Aisyah Jurnal Ilmu Kesehatan · doi:10.30604/jika.v8i1.1603 · Cited by 5
Sapouna, V., Dimitriadis, Z., Douros, K., Kapreli, E., & Kortianou, E. A. (2023) · Pediatric Physical Therapy · doi:10.1097/pep.0000000000001039 · Cited by 1
Digital transformation strategy for print newspapers: A Conceptual Framework
Sharara, K., Simuka, J., & Zimucha, T. (2023) · Journal of Research and Innovation for Sustainable Society · doi:10.33727/jriss.2023.2.19:155-168 · Cited by 1
Interventions for pregnant youth and young mothers experiencing homelessness: A systematic review
Lakrouf, R., Roy, L., Arbaud, C., & Stich, C. (2024) · Children and Youth Services Review · doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107678 · Cited by 1
Pott, C., Dreischulte, T., Koller, D., Fegl, M., Langemeyer, J., & Bauer, P. (2024) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084316 · Cited by 1
Ryan, S., Forster, E., & Griffin, B. R. (2024) · Australasian Emergency Care · doi:10.1016/j.auec.2024.09.001 · Cited by 1
Beroza, A. J., Rine, S., Bikomeye, J. C., Magezi, R. K., Ouma, S., Dickson‐Gómez, J., Kyomya, M. M., Katende, D., Bojang, M., Twaibu, W., et al. (2024) · Journal of Global Health Reports · doi:10.29392/001c.124465 · Cited by 2
Müller, A., Dolbeault, S., Piperno-Neumann, S., Clerc, M., Jarry, P., Cassoux, N., Rouïc, L. L.-L., Matet, A., Rodrigues, M. J., Holzner, B., et al. (2024) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-024-06265-2 · Cited by 1
Ghildiyal, S., Somalwar, S. A., & Bhalerao, A. V. (2025) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.77788 · Cited by 1
Wijayanto, P. W., Ariefianto, L., & Judijanto, L. (2024) · Mimbar Ilmu · doi:10.23887/mi.v29i2.76076 · Cited by 1
“This mixed method combines quantitative descriptive research with surveys and qualitative research by conducting interview sessions (Camilli Trujillo et al., 2022; Hong et al., 2019).”
Keutchafo, E. L. W., Mitha, S. B., & Haffejee, F. (2025) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/76971 · Cited by 1
P., F. H. K., Christy, J., Roopesh, B. N., & Binu, V. S. N. (2025) · Trends in Psychology · doi:10.1007/s43076-025-00483-7 · Cited by 1
Family Planning Services in Covid-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review
Sari, R. D. P., Hakimi, M., Mufdlilah, M., & Anjarwati, A. (2021) · STRADA JURNAL ILMIAH KESEHATAN · doi:10.30994/sjik.v10i1.630 · Cited by 1
Boloré, S., & Garcia-Loiseau, J. (2022) · Research and theory for nursing practice · doi:10.1891/rtnp-2021-0093 · Cited by 1
Mazevska, D., Pearse, J., & Tierney, S. (2022) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-022-02132-x · Cited by 1
Merrigan, G., & Bennett, L. (2023) · Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences · doi:10.33700/jhrs.2.1.70 · Cited by 1
Hillersdal, L., Nielsen, Z. E., Nørmark, A. T., Knoop, A. S., & Piil, K. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1546609/v1 · Cited by 1
The effect of m-Health interventions on early child development: a systematic review protocolPreprint
Tavassoli, G., Samimi, T., Afshar, H. L., Eslamlou, H. F., & Rahimi, B. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3100896/v1 · Cited by 1
Hedima, E. W., & Okoro, R. N. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4445385/v1 · Cited by 1
Farrie, H., Gillani, S., Ameaka, F. N., Campbell, E., Toner, E. S., Ravi, S., Soneja, S. I., & Rivers, C. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.03.26.25324620 · Cited by 1
“A standardized quality assessment tool 21 was utilized to ensure the reliability and validity of the data identified through the systematic review.”
Khosravipour, M., Khanlari, P., & Jafari, M. R. (2021) · Iranian Journal of Ergonomics · doi:10.30699/jergon.9.1.15
Calvo‐Schimmel, A., Qanungo, S., Newman, S., & Sterba, K. R. (2021) · Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal · doi:10.5737/23688076314430450
Implementation of Maternal Services for Young Mothers: A Scoping Review
Lestari, Y. P., Astuti, A. W., Fitriahadi, E., & Ratnaningsih, S. (2021) · JHeS (Journal of Health Studies) · doi:10.31101/jhes.1999
Schulz, J., Hamilton, C., Wonnacott, E., & Murphy, V. A. (2022) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/usj54
Virtual Reality als Trainingstool in der Klinischen und Gesundheitspsychologie
Schuster, L., Friedrich, A.-S. E., Kothgassner, O. D., & Zemp, M. (2022) · Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie · doi:10.1026/1616-3443/a000662
Acompanhamento de crianças de alto risco em serviços de saúde: estudo de método misto geoespacial
Shibukawa, B. M. C., Uema, R. T. B., de Oliveira, N. N., de Oliveira, R. R., dos Santos, J. L. G., & Higarashi, I. H. (2022) · Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem · doi:10.1590/1518-8345.5806.3778
Seguimiento de niños de alto riesgo en los servicios de salud: estudio de método geoespacial mixto
Shibukawa, B. M. C., Uema, R. T. B., de Oliveira, N. N., de Oliveira, R. R., dos Santos, J. L. G., & Higarashi, I. H. (2022) · Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem · doi:10.1590/1518-8345.5806.3776
Jabari, M. A. (2023) · International Journal of General Medicine · doi:10.2147/ijgm.s396144
(2023) · The University of Adelaide · doi:10.3310/nihropenres.14432.r28948
(2023) · NIHR Open Research · doi:10.3310/nihropenres.14597.r29940
Kellerhuis, B. E., Jenniskens, K., Schuit, E., Hooft, L., Moons, K. G. M., & Reitsma, J. B. (2023) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2023.07.26.23293187
(2023) · NIHR Open Research · doi:10.3310/nihropenres.14597.r29953
Nursing care for people with concurrent heart failure and diabetes: A scoping review
Yamazaki, Y., Kuroda, S., & Sawaoka, M. (2023) · Journal of International Nursing Research · doi:10.53044/jinr.2022-0033
INTERVENCIONES BASADAS EN INTERNET PARA LA ATENCIÓN DE TRASTORNOS MENTALES EN PANDEMIA
Carrión, J., Reynaldos-Grandón, K. L., Nasabún, V., & Cartagena-Ramos, D. (2023) · Benessere Revista de Enfermería · doi:10.22370/bre.81.2023.3703
Sergerie‐Richard, S., Dupuis, F., & Cassivi, C. (2023) · Recherche en soins infirmiers · doi:10.3917/rsi.153.0024
Le TDAH : un facteur de risque de malocclusions dentaires ? Revue systématique de la littérature
Charavet, C., Deure, D. V. D., & Lupi, L. (2023) · Revue d Orthopédie Dento-Faciale · doi:10.1051/odf/2023029
Metadata
- Authors
- Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.-C., & Vedel, I.
- Affiliations
- McGill University (CA)
- Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (ES)
- University of Warwick (GB)
- University of Canberra (AU)
- Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
- Université Laval (CA)
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Pluye, Pierre
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-07
- Volume
- 111
- Pages
- 49-59.e1
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2924322406
- Cited by
- 1,082
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 205 · 2025: 178 · 2024: 190 · 2023: 174 · 2022: 163 · 2021: 110 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 5
- FWCI
- 168.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- The Oberta in Open Access (Universitat Oberta de Catalunya) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- eScholarship@McGill (McGill) (submittedVersion)
- EspaceINRS (National Institute for Scientific Research (Canada)) (submittedVersion)
- RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
- Keywords
- Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, content validity, critical appraisal, methodological quality criteria, qualitative research, survey research, mixed methods, e-Delphi, expert consensus
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Delphi Technique, Research Design, Reproducibility of Results
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
