Table 3.
Description and quality of evidence assessment for mixed methods studies (n = 5)
| Quality of Evidence Assessmenta | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study Reference | Sample, Sample Size, & Location | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 |
| Auchus et al. (2021) |
-Patients at a HIV primary care clinic (n = 966 records, n = 202 surveys) -San Francisco, CA |
Y | Y | Y | ? | ? |
| Campbell et al. (2021) |
-Message exchanges between PositiveLink members (n = 497 patients) and their care team (n = 6,668 exchanges) -Virginia |
Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Dawson & Kates (2020) |
- Directly funded Ryan White medical provider grantees (n = 161) -National |
Y | Y | Y | ? | N |
| Gwadz et al. (2021) |
- African American/Black or Latino PWH from low-SES background participating in an existing study (n = 96 surveys, n = 26 interviews) -New York City, NY |
Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Qiao et al. (2021) |
- Ryan White clinics (n = 27) -South Carolina |
Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
aMixed Methods Assessment Tool questions:
Q1. Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question? Q2. Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question? Q3. Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted? Q4. Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed? Q5. Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved?
Legend: Y-yes, N-no, ?-unclear, HIV-human immunodeficiency virus, PWH-people living with HIV, SES-social economic status