Search

Conducting mixed methods reviews is challenging. The aim of this article is to describe a range of rationales for and approaches to mixed methods reviews, with a particular focus on one research group. A case study was conducted to describe the mixed methods review process used at the Department of Health and Social Care Reviews Facility in England. The case study used document analysis. A total of 30 mixed methods reviews were identified and analyzed. The analysis revealed five key dimensions on which the reviews varied: review questions and purposes of the mixed methods questions, types of evidence and sources, reasons for using a mixed methods approach, synthesis methods and designs, and integration strategies. The questions in the included reviews addressed stakeholders' views, and intervention processes and/or intervention effectiveness. The mixed methods questions addressed four different purposes: comparing findings, identifying critical intervention features, quantifying effects, and making recommendations. Five main sources of evidence were used: formal evidence from primary studies, informal evidence, policy documents, systematic reviews, and work with stakeholders. Twelve reasons for conducting mixed methods reviews were identified: completeness, contextual understanding, credibility, different research questions, diversity of views, enhancement, explanation, process, triangulation, utility, development of a framework, and identification of promising interventions. Each review employed one or several integration strategies for comparing findings, connecting phases and/or assimilating data. It is hoped that the information garnered from this study will provide useful insights into mixed method review diversity and trigger new ideas for conducting this type of review.

Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) was originally developed as a tool for cross-national comparisons in macrosociology, but its use in evaluation and evidence synthesis of complex interventions is rapidly developing. QCA is theory-driven and relies on Boolean logic to identify pathways to an outcome (e.g., is the intervention effective or not?). We use the example of two linked systematic reviews on weight management programs (WMPs) for adults--one focusing on user views (a "views synthesis") and one focusing on the effectiveness of WMPs incorporating dietary and physical activity--to demonstrate how a synthesis of user views can supply a working theory to structure a QCA. We discuss how a views synthesis is especially apt to supply this working theory because user views can (a) represent a "middle-range theory" of the intervention; (b) bring a participatory, democratic perspective; and (c) provide an idiographic understanding of how the intervention works that external taxonomies may not be able to furnish. We then discuss the practical role that the views synthesis played in our QCA examining pathways to effectiveness: (a) by suggesting specific intervention features and sharpening the focus on the most salient features to be examined, (b) by supporting interpretation of findings, and (c) by bounding data analysis to prevent data dredging.

Non-pharmacological interventions for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder are useful treatments, but it is unclear how effective school-based interventions are for a range of outcomes and which features of interventions are most effective. This paper systematically reviews randomised controlled trial evidence of the effectiveness of interventions for children with ADHD in school settings. Three methods of synthesis were used to explore the effectiveness of interventions, whether certain types of interventions are more effective than others and which components of interventions lead to effective academic outcomes. Twenty-eight studies (n = 1807) were included in the review. Eight types of interventions were evaluated and a range of different ADHD symptoms, difficulties and school outcomes were assessed across studies. Meta-analyses demonstrated beneficial effects for interventions that combine multiple features (median effect size g = 0.37, interquartile range 0.32, range 0.09-1.13) and suggest some promise for daily report card interventions (median g = 0.62, IQR = 0.25, range 0.13-1.62). Meta-regression analyses did not give a consistent message regarding which types of interventions were more effective than others. Finally, qualitative comparative analysis demonstrated that self-regulation and one-to-one intervention delivery were important components of interventions that were effective for academic outcomes. These two components were not sufficient though; when they appeared with personalisation for individual recipients and delivery in the classroom, or when interventions did not aim to improve child relationships, interventions were effective. This review provides updated information about the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions specific to school settings and gives tentative messages about important features of these interventions for academic outcomes.

When swift, accurate appraisal of evidence is required to inform policy concerning broad research questions, and budgetary constraints limit the employment of large research teams, researchers face a significant challenge which is sometimes met by reviewing existing systematic reviews. In this paper we highlight the challenges inherent in the reviews of reviews (RoR) method in order to advance understanding of this important tool for policy makers. Drawing on our experiences, we present, where possible, potential solutions to these challenges to demonstrate that RoRs, despite their limitations, can be useful for mediating policy-relevant evidence at speed.

Mainstream law and ethics literature on consent to children's surgery contrasts with moral experiences of children and adults observed in two heart surgery centres. Research interviews were conducted with 45 practitioners and related experts, and with 16 families of children aged 6 to 15, admitted for non-urgent surgery, as well as an online survey. Thematic data analysis was informed by critical realism and childhood studies. Impersonal adult-centric mainstream literature assumes young children cannot consent. It is based on dichotomies: adult/child, competent/incompetent, respect or protect children, inform or distract them, use time swiftly or flexibly, verbal/non-verbal communication, respect or control children and reason/emotion. Through their moral experiences, adults and children resolve these seeming dichotomies. Through understanding young children's reasoning and emotions about complex distressing decisions related to heart surgery, adults share knowledge, control, trust and respect with them. They see children's consent or refusal before non-urgent surgery as a shared personal moral experience within the child's life course, beyond mere legal compliance. Adults help children to understand and 'want' the surgery that offers things they value: better health or to 'be more like their friends'. If children are not convinced, sometimes surgery is postponed or occasionally cancelled. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fentanyl is a key therapeutic, used in anaesthesia and pain management. It is also increasingly used illicitly and is responsible for a large and growing number of opioid overdose deaths, especially in North America. A number of factors have been suggested to contribute to fentanyl's lethality, including rapid onset of action, in vivo potency, ligand bias, induction of muscle rigidity and reduced sensitivity to reversal by naloxone. Some of these factors can be considered to represent 'anomalous' pharmacological properties of fentanyl when compared with prototypical opioid agonists such as morphine. In this review, we examine the nature of fentanyl's 'anomalous' properties, to determine whether there is really a pharmacological basis to support the existence of such properties, and also discuss whether such properties are likely to contribute to overdose deaths involving fentanyls. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed issue on Advances in Opioid Pharmacology at the Time of the Opioid Epidemic. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v180.7/issuetoc [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]