Cited by 371Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsHealth Policy Implementation Science

Methodological Issues in Combining Diverse Study Types in Systematic Reviews

Harden, Angela, Thomas, James·2005·International Journal of Social Research Methodology

Abstract

In this paper we discuss mixing methods at the level of reviews of research, combining the findings of multiple, already existing, studies that are labelled broadly as using either ‘qualitative’ or ‘quantitative’ methods. We define systematic reviews and outline the ‘mixed methods’ we have developed for combining diverse study types within them. Traditional systematic reviews usually answer a single question, use one type of study and, hence, only require one method of synthesis to combine the findings of studies. Our methods involve conducting three types of synthesis: (1) a statistical meta‐analysis to pool trials of interventions tackling a particular health, social or educational problem; (2) a synthesis of studies examining people’s perspectives or experiences of that problem using qualitative analysis; and (3) a mixed methods synthesis bringing the products of (1) and (2) together. We discuss the strengths of these mixed methods at the review level, reflect on their lessons for the concept of ‘triangulation’ and raise questions about the utility of the terms ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ and ‘mixed methods’ for classifying different types of research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13645570500155078

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 use of closed-response questions in such research potentially prohibits the development of a detailed understanding grounded in people's own perspectives regarding aspects that help them engage and hinder them from engaging.

    “the use of closed-response questions in such research potentially prohibits the development of a detailed understanding that is grounded in people’s own perspectives regarding aspects that help them engage and hinder them from engaging [17]”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 40 · Cited by 371

Authors
Harden, A., & Thomas, J.
Affiliations
University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Harden, Angela
Venue
International Journal of Social Research Methodology
Published
2005-07
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
257-271
ISSN
  • 1364-5579 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5300
OpenAlex
W2044045982
Cited by
371
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 17
FWCI
1.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Social Research Methodology (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Evidence Synthesis Programme
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
mixed methods synthesis, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, qualitative evidence synthesis, triangulation, research classification

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