Department of Neurology, Xiyuan Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China.
2 Center for Evidence-based Chinese Medicine, Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100700, China.
J Tradit Chin Med. 2022 Aug;42(4):652-666. doi: 10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.20220602.002.
To update the current characteristics about the scope and quality of mixed methods research (MMR) in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) after nearly 10 years.
A 5-stage approach for conducting a scoping review was adopted. Articles published on the top 10 journals in CAM with the highest impact factor in 2020 were screened for MMR. Information of included articles were extracted, and then synthesized to illustrate the current state. Methodological quality was evaluated according to the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) 2018 version.
A total of 55 (55/2991, 2%) articles using mixed methods were retrieved, including 17 medical studies and 38 ethnobotanical studies. We performed an in-depth analysis on the 17 medical studies, which studied cancer, stress, pain, fatigue, exercises, mindfulness intervention, herbal medicine use, art and acupuncture. Thirteen pilot studies applied MMR to evaluate the feasibility of interventions or programs (13/17, 76%); phenomenology was inferred as the most common philosophical assumptions (13/17, 76%); the most applied type of MMR was convergent design (16/17, 94%); integration often took place at integration (12/17, 71%). Among the 16 eligible studies for quality appraisal, majority were rated as good (14/16, 88%), whereas two studies were rated as poorly described. Primarily, a poor rating was due to incomplete reporting of data analysis and citations in qualitative components; lack of confounder controlling and the sampling strategy in quantitative components; poor description of integration and justification for mixed methods. Comparing with the previous review, fewer MMR were published in 2020 in CAM, but the proportion of studies that clearly reported MMR has increased by 4 times (4%→15%).
CAM researchers need to realize the benefits that MMR can have on conducting further health care research. Our findings highlight that applying MMR will be helpful to understand the complex dynamics and interdisciplinary nature of complex intervention. In addition, addressing a standardized reporting criteria for MMR is recommended.
在近 10 年后,更新补充和替代医学(CAM)中混合方法研究(MMR)的范围和质量的最新特征。
采用了一个 5 阶段的方法来进行范围综述。筛选了 2020 年影响因子最高的前 10 名 CAM 期刊上发表的关于 MMR 的文章。提取纳入文章的信息,并进行综合说明当前状态。根据 2018 年混合方法评估工具(MMAT)进行方法学质量评估。
共检索到 55 篇(55/2991,2%)使用混合方法的文章,包括 17 项医学研究和 38 项民族植物学研究。我们对 17 项医学研究进行了深入分析,这些研究涉及癌症、压力、疼痛、疲劳、运动、正念干预、草药使用、艺术和针灸。13 项初步研究应用 MMR 评估干预或方案的可行性(13/17,76%);现象学被推断为最常见的哲学假设(13/17,76%);最应用的 MMR 类型是收敛设计(16/17,94%);整合经常发生在整合(12/17,71%)。在 16 项符合质量评估标准的研究中,大多数被评为良好(14/16,88%),而有两项研究被评为描述较差。主要原因是定性部分数据分析和引用不完整;定量部分缺乏混杂因素控制和抽样策略;整合和混合方法合理性描述较差。与之前的综述相比,2020 年 CAM 发表的 MMR 较少,但明确报告 MMR 的研究比例增加了 4 倍(4%→15%)。
CAM 研究人员需要认识到 MMR 对进行进一步的医疗保健研究的益处。我们的研究结果强调,应用 MMR 将有助于理解复杂干预的复杂动态和跨学科性质。此外,建议采用标准化的 MMR 报告标准。