Methodological Issues in Combining Diverse Study Types in Systematic Reviews
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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]”
From Experiences of Using Digital Mindfulness-Based Interventions: Rapid Scoping Review and Thematic Synthesis (2023) · cites this paper as [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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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