Table 2.

Analysis of research designs in studies included in the review, inspired by the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (Pluye et al. 2011)

Qualitative designs (n = 6, 21.4 %)

+ Descriptions of data collection methods, formats and results took into account the research context

− Very little information was provided on the researcher’s influence on the interpretation of results

− Descriptions of participant selection or exclusion criteria were sometimes missing

Qualitative designs without random selection (n = 9, 32.1 %)

+ Recruitment methods helped reduce the biases associated with participant selection

+ Data were sufficiently complete to support the results

+ Measurement instruments and variables studied were generally well described

− Psychometric properties of the instruments used were poorly documented

Qualitative designs with random selection (n = 5, 17.9 %)

+ Sampling procedures were well explained and presented low rates of exclusion and drop-out

− Procedures for blinding were presented in only half the studies

Descriptive qualitative designs (n = 2, 7.1 %)

− Little information was presented on participant selection method

− No information was presented on sample representativeness

− Relevance of measurements used was mixed

Mixed designs (n = 6, 21.4 %)

+ Research design selected and integration of qualitative and quantitative data appear appropriate for responding to the study’s objectives

− Very little information was presented on the limitations of this integration