A new form of literature review has emerged, Mixed Studies Review (MSR). These reviews include qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. In the present paper, we examine MSRs in health sciences, and provide guidance on processes that should be included and reported. However, there are no valid and usable criteria for concomitantly appraising the methodological quality of the qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. Objective: To propose criteria for concomitantly appraising the methodological quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies or study components. Design: A three-step critical review was conducted. Data sources: 2322 references were identified in MEDLINE, and their titles and abstracts were screened; 149 potentially relevant references were selected and the full-text papers were examined; 59 MSRs were retained and scrutinized using a deductive–inductive qualitative thematic data analysis. This revealed three types of MSR: convenience, reproducible, and systematic. Review methods: Guided by a proposal, we conducted a qualitative thematic data analysis of the quality appraisal procedures used in the 17 systematic MSRs (SMSRs). Results: Of 17 SMSRs, 12 showed clear quality appraisal procedures with explicit criteria but no SMSR used valid checklists to concomitantly appraise qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. In two SMSRs, criteria were developed following a specific procedure. Checklists usually contained more criteria than needed. In four SMSRs, a reliability assessment was described or mentioned. While criteria for quality appraisal were usually based on descriptors that require specific methodological expertise (e.g., appropriateness), no SMSR described the fit between reviewers’ expertise and appraised studies. Quality appraisal usually resulted in studies being ranked by methodological quality.

Background The increase in the number of chronically ill patients due to ageing is calling existing models of primary care (PC) into question. New care models have recently been implemented in Swiss PC and involve interprofessional teams. This paper aimed to investigate the practice of interprofessional collaboration between advanced practice nurses, registered nurses, and medical practice assistants within new models of PC in Switzerland using the National Interprofessional Competency Framework. Methods An ethnographic design comprising semi-structured interviews and non-participant observations was conducted. Sixteen interviews were conducted with care providers at their PC practice. Interviewees included four advanced practice nurses, two registered nurses, six medical practice assistants, and four general practitioners. Nine other health professionals were subsequently observed in their practice. Interviews and observations were conducted by the first author from February to April 2019. Results Our analysis of interview and observational data confirmed that role clarification, team functioning, collaborative leadership, interprofessional conflict resolution, patient-centered care, and interprofessional communication have a significant influence on the interprofessional collaboration among health professionals in Swiss PC. Among these domains, role clarification and team functioning were the most frequently raised issues. Both were found to have the potential to negatively influence and, therefore, hinder efficient interprofessional collaboration within PC. Conclusion From the analysis, it emerged that role clarification is crucial for effective interprofessional collaboration within new care delivery models in the Swiss PC context. Our study results may inform international health policymakers and practitioners about six important domains of interprofessional care when implementing new care models. Practical experience with new models of care involving advanced practice nurses and medical practice assistants may also influence the regulation of the scope of practice of these health professionals in Switzerland.

Neste ensaio busca-se aprofundar a reflexão sobre o processo de análise na pesquisa qualitativa a partir de autores referenciais e da experiência da própria autora. O texto está organizado em forma de decálogo por meio do qual é tratado o tema processualmente. A hipótese é de que uma análise para ser fidedigna precisa conter os termos estruturantes da investigação qualitativa que são os verbos: compreender e interpretar; e os substantivos: experiência, vivência, senso comum e ação social. A seguir a proposta avança por 10 passos que se iniciam na construção científica do objeto pela sua colocação no âmbito do conhecimento nacional e internacional, na elaboração de instrumentos que tornem concretos os conceitos teóricos, na execução de um trabalho de campo que envolva empaticamente o investigador no uso de vários tipos de técnicas e abordagens, tornando-o um construtor de relações, de observações e de uma narrativa em perspectiva. Por fim, a autora trata da análise propriamente dita, mostrando como o objeto, que já vem pensado em todas as etapas anteriores, deve se tornar um construto de segunda ordem, em que predomine a lógica dos atores em sua diversidade e não apenas as suas falas, dentro de uma narrativa teorizada, contextualizada, concisa e clara.