Work Disability and Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Teleworkers: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: This project aimed to examine the existing evidence on work disability or musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) among teleworkers. METHOD: A scoping review was conducted in eight bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, ABI/Inform Global, EBM Reviews, Web of Science, Dissertations & Theses Global) from inception to June 2022. RESULTS: Out of 9192 records identified, a total of 79 selected articles representing 77 studies were retained. Most studies were published after 2019, aligning with the COVID-19 pandemic's telework surge. Among the included papers, 51 addressed MSDs among teleworkers, 17 were on work disability, and 11 addressed both concepts. The studies were predominantly cross-sectional. Some trends are emerging, although study results are contradictory. Several papers reported increased musculoskeletal discomfort among teleworkers. Factors associated with MSDs among teleworkers include poor workstation setup, extended workdays, sedentary lifestyle, excessive devices use, and psychological factors. Regarding work disability, studies found that telework is associated with reduced absenteeism but increased presenteeism, with employees more likely to work while unwell from home than when on-site. Mixed results were found regarding teleworkers' work ability and functioning. CONCLUSION: This paper provides an overview of the literature on work disability and MSDs among teleworkers. It identifies literature gaps, underlining the need for ergonomic improvements, long-term impact studies, a better conceptualization of presenteeism in the context of telework, and tailored interventions to enhance the telework experience.

Production and use of rapid responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec (Canada): perspectives from evidence synthesis producers and decision makers.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has required evidence to be made available more rapidly than usual, in order to meet the needs of decision makers in a timely manner. These exceptional circumstances have caused significant challenges for organizations and teams responsible for evidence synthesis. They had to adapt to provide rapid responses to support decision-making. This study aimed to document (1) the challenges and adaptations made to produce rapid responses during the pandemic, (2) their perceived usefulness, reported use and factors influencing their use and (3) the methodological adaptations made to produce rapid responses. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted in 2021 with eight organizations in the health and social services system in Quebec (Canada), including three institutes with a provincial mandate. Data collection included focus groups (n = 9 groups in 8 organizations with 64 participants), interviews with decision makers (n = 12), and a document analysis of COVID-19 rapid responses (n = 128). A thematic analysis of qualitative data (objectives 1 and 2) and a descriptive analysis of documents (objective 3) were conducted. RESULTS: The results highlight the teams and organizations' agility to deal with the many challenges encountered during the pandemic (e.g., increased their workloads, adoption of new technological tools or work processes, improved collaboration, development of scientific monitoring, adaptation of evidence synthesis methodologies and products). The challenge of balancing rigor and speed was reported by teams and organizations. When available at the right time, rapid responses have been reported as a useful tool for informing or justifying decisions in a context of uncertainty. Several factors that may influence their use were identified (e.g., clearly identify needs, interactions with producers, perceived rigor and credibility, precise and feasible recommendations). Certain trends in the methodological approaches used to speed up the evidence synthesis process were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study documented rapid responses producers' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec, and decision makers who requested, consulted, or used these products. Potential areas of improvements are identified such as reinforce coordination, improve communication loops, clarify guidelines or methodological benchmarks, and enhance utility of rapid response products for decision makers.

Using qualitative comparative analysis as a mixed methods synthesis in systematic mixed studies reviews: Guidance and a worked example.

Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is a hybrid method designed to bridge the gap between qualitative and quantitative research in a case-sensitive approach that considers each case holistically as a complex configuration of conditions and outcomes. QCA allows for multiple conjunctural causation, implying that it is often a combination of conditions that produces an outcome, that multiple pathways may lead to the same outcome, and that in different contexts, the same condition may have a different impact on the outcome. This approach to complexity allows QCA to provide a practical understanding for complex, real-world situations, and the context of implementing interventions. There are guides for conducting QCA in primary research and quantitative systematic reviews yet, to our knowledge, no guidance for conducting QCA in systematic mixed studies reviews (SMSRs). Thus, the specific objectives of this paper are to (1) describe a step-by-step approach for novice researchers for using QCA to integrate qualitative and quantitative evidence, including guidance on how to use software; (2) highlight specific challenges; (3) propose potential solutions from a worked example; and (4) provide recommendations for reporting.

A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating knowledge mobilization strategies (KMb) presents challenges for organizations seeking to understand their impact to improve KMb effectiveness. Moreover, the large number of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) available can be confusing for users. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of TMFs that have been used or proposed in the literature to evaluate KMb strategies. METHODS: A scoping review methodology was used. Articles were identified through searches in electronic databases, previous reviews and reference lists of included articles. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form. Data extracted included study characteristics, KMb characteristics, and TMFs used or proposed for KMb evaluation. An adapted version of Nilsen (Implement Sci 10:53, 2015) taxonomy and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy (Powell et al. in Implement Sci 10:21, 2015) guided data synthesis. RESULTS: Of the 4763 search results, 505 were retrieved, and 88 articles were eligible for review. These consisted of 40 theoretical articles (45.5%), 44 empirical studies (50.0%) and four protocols (4.5%). The majority were published after 2010 (n = 70, 79.5%) and were health related (n = 71, 80.7%). Half of the studied KMb strategies were implemented in only four countries: Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom (n = 42, 47.7%). One-third used existing TMFs (n = 28, 31.8%). According to the adapted Nilsen taxonomy, process models (n = 34, 38.6%) and evaluation frameworks (n = 28, 31.8%) were the two most frequent types of TMFs used or proposed to evaluate KMb. According to the ERIC taxonomy, activities to "train and educate stakeholders" (n = 46, 52.3%) were the most common, followed by activities to "develop stakeholder interrelationships" (n = 23, 26.1%). Analysis of the TMFs identified revealed relevant factors of interest for the evaluation of KMb strategies, classified into four dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review provides an overview of the many KMb TMFs used or proposed. The results provide insight into potential dimensions and components to be considered when assessing KMb strategies.

Teleworking to Support Accommodation, Inclusion, and Health of Aging Workers: Protocol for a Study to Design, Validate, and Test a Reflective Application Guide.

BACKGROUND: Aging workers constitute a growing population in many countries and form an indispensable and qualified resource, especially in the context of the labor shortage. Despite work's many benefits for individuals, organizations, and societies, it also presents several risks and challenges that may lead to occupational injuries. Thus, rehabilitation professionals and managers working with this emerging and unique clientele during their return to work after an absence often lack the tools and skills to support them, especially in the changing world of work that includes the rise of telework. Indeed, as an increasingly present work arrangement, telework has the potential to be used as an accommodation modality that can facilitate inclusion and healthy participation in the workplace. However, the implications of this topic for aging workers require study. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol of a study that aims to develop a reflective telework application guide to support the accommodation, inclusion, and health of aging workers after an absence from work. Specifically, this study will (1) explore the experience of aging workers, managers, and rehabilitation professionals regarding telework and its impact on accommodation, inclusion, and health; (2) use a validated logic model to design a reflective application guide; and (3) test and evaluate the guide. METHODS: Following a 3-phase developmental research design, individual interviews with aging teleworkers, managers, and rehabilitation professionals will enable the collection of qualitative data to be used in generating a logic model of levers and good practices, leading to the creation of a reflective application guide. Validation of this guide by workers and managers to measure its acceptability and applicability in daily life will precede its implementation. RESULTS: Data collection began in spring 2023 and initial results are expected in fall 2023. This study aims to generate a concrete tool-namely, the reflective telework application guide-that rehabilitation professionals could use to support managers and aging workers during their return to work through the healthy use of telework. All phases of the study include conducting dissemination activities to share the results of the project and increase its sustainability potential (ie, publication through social networks, podcasts, conferences, and scientific publications). CONCLUSIONS: As the first of its kind, this project aims to produce innovative impacts at several levels, including practical, scientific, and societal impacts. In addition, the results will provide healthy solutions to the labor shortage in a changing world of work, where digital and teleworking are becoming increasingly important. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46114.

How to use mixed methods in oral health research.

Wicked problems exist in the realm of oral health research. Due to their inherent complexity, using qualitative or quantitative methods alone may not be adequate for resolving them. Mixed methods approaches combine qualitative and quantitative methods, and thus, can provide a powerful tool for understanding and solving complex problems in dental public health. However, using mixed methods does not come without its challenges. This commentary outlines four main tips for researchers to consider when applying mixed methods to their research projects.

Using systems perspectives in evidence synthesis: A methodological mapping review.

Reviewing complex interventions is challenging because they include many elements that can interact dynamically in a nonlinear manner. A systems perspective offers a way of thinking to help understand complex issues, but its application in evidence synthesis is not established. The aim of this project was to understand how and why systems perspectives have been applied in evidence synthesis. A methodological mapping review was conducted to identify papers using a systems perspective in evidence synthesis. A search was conducted in seven bibliographic databases and three search engines. A total of 101 papers (representing 98 reviews) met the eligibility criteria. Two categories of reviews were identified: (1) reviews using a "systems lens" to frame the topic, generate hypotheses, select studies, and guide the analysis and interpretation of findings (n = 76) and (2) reviews using systems methods to develop a systems model (n = 22). Several methods (e.g., systems dynamic modeling, soft systems approach) were identified, and they were used to identify, rank and select elements, analyze interactions, develop models, and forecast needs. The main reasons for using a systems perspective were to address complexity, view the problem as a whole, and understand the interrelationships between the elements. Several challenges for capturing the true nature and complexity of a problem were raised when performing these methods. This review is a useful starting point when designing evidence synthesis of complex interventions. It identifies different opportunities for applying a systems perspective in evidence synthesis, and highlights both commonplace and less familiar methods.

Mixed methods intervention studies in children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders: A methodological review.

BACKGROUND: Mixed methods intervention studies can improve the accuracy of interventional evaluations in the field of emotional and behavioral disorders by helping researchers gain a more nuanced understanding of how a particular intervention works. However, no studies to date have systematically examined the ways in which this type of studies have been carried out and reported. AIM: To examine the methodological features and reporting practices found in mixed methods intervention studies in children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders. METHOD: Methodological review based on a systematic search from inception to July 2021 in Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS, and a hand search in seven journals. RESULTS: We found 30 studies, most of them published since 2019. These studies reported several patterns of mixed methods use which illustrated the unique insights that researchers can gain by using this approach. We identified several ways that authors could more clearly report the justification for using a mixed methods approach, the description of the design used, and the evidence of integration of the quantitative and qualitative components. CONCLUSION: We make recommendations for improving the reporting quality of mixed methods intervention studies in the field of emotional and behavioral disorders.

Multicriteria decision analysis in health care decision in oncology: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been used to inform health decisions in health technology assessments (HTA) processes. This is particularly important to complex treatment decisions in oncology. AREAS COVERED: Five databases (PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science and CRD's NHS Economic Evaluation Database) were searched for studies comparing health technologies in oncology, involving the concept MCDA. The ISPOR MCDA Good Practices Guidelines were used to assess the reporting quality. Study selection, appraisal, and data extraction were performed by two reviewers. Fifteen studies were included. The main decision problem was related to health technology assessment of cancer treatments. Clinicians and public health experts were the most frequent stakeholders. The most frequently included criteria comprised therapeutic benefit, and socio-economic impact. Value measurement approach, direct rating techniques, and additive model for aggregation were used in most studies. Uncertainty analysis revealed the impact of posology and costs on the studies' results. All studies showed some level of overlapping decision criteria. EXPERT OPINION: There is considerable diversity of methods in MCDA for healthcare decision-making in oncology. The evidence presented can serve as a resource when considering which stakeholders, criteria, and techniques to include in future MCDA studies in oncology.

Effectiveness and experiences of the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) Model in developing competencies among healthcare professionals: a mixed methods systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: The Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) Model of continuing tele-education is an innovative guided-practice model aiming at amplifying healthcare professionals' competencies in the management of chronic and complex health conditions. While data on the impact of the ECHO model is increasingly available in the literature, what influences the model effectiveness remains unclear. Therefore, the overarching aim of this systematic review is to identify, appraise, and synthesize the available quantitative (QUAN) and qualitative (QUAL) evidence regarding the ECHO Model effectiveness and the experiences/views of ECHO's participants about what influences the development of competencies in healthcare professionals. METHODS: The proposed systematic review was inspired by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews (MMSR) and will follow a convergent segregated approach. A systematic search will be undertaken using QUAN, QUAL and mixed methods (MM) studies of ECHO-affiliated programs identified in six databases. A publication date filter will be applied to find the articles published from 2003 onwards. Sources of unpublished studies and gray literature will be searched as well. Retrieved citations will independently be screened by two reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion until a consensus is reached or by including a third reviewer. Studies meeting the predefined inclusion criteria will be assessed on methodological quality and the data will be extracted using standardized data extraction forms. Separate QUAN and QUAL synthesis will be performed, and findings will be integrated using a matrix approach for the purpose of comparison and complementarity. DISCUSSION: This MMSR will fulfill important gaps in the current literature on the ECHO Model as the first to provide estimates on its effectiveness and consider simultaneously the experiences/views of ECHO's participants. As each replication of the ECHO Model greatly varies depending on the context, topic, and targeted professionals, a better understanding of what influences the model effectiveness in developing healthcare professionals' competencies is crucial to inform future implementation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020197579.

HIV-sensitive social protection for vulnerable young women in East and Southern Africa: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Social protection programmes are considered HIV-sensitive when addressing risk, vulnerability or impact of HIV infection. Socio-economic interventions, like livelihood and employability programmes, address HIV vulnerabilities like poverty and gender inequality. We explored the HIV-sensitivity of socio-economic interventions for unemployed and out-of-school young women aged 15 to 30 years, in East and Southern Africa, a key population for HIV infection. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using a narrative synthesis method and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for quality appraisal. Interventions of interest were work skills training, microfinance, and employment support. Outcomes of interest were socio-economic outcomes (income, assets, savings, skills, (self-) employment) and HIV-related outcomes (behavioural and biological). We searched published and grey literature (January 2005 to November 2019; English/French) in MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and websites of relevant international organizations. RESULTS: We screened 3870 titles and abstracts and 188 full-text papers to retain 18 papers, representing 12 projects. Projects offered different combinations of HIV-sensitive social protection programmes, complemented with mentors, safe space and training (HIV, reproductive health and gender training). All 12 projects offered work skills training to improve life and business skills. Six offered formal (n = 2) or informal (n = 5) livelihood training. Eleven projects offered microfinance, including microgrants (n = 7), microcredit (n = 6) and savings (n = 4). One project offered employment support in the form of apprenticeships. In general, microgrants, savings, business and life skills contributed improved socio-economic and HIV-related outcomes. Most livelihood training contributed positive socio-economic outcomes, but only two projects showed improved HIV-related outcomes. Microcredit contributed little to either outcome. Programmes were effective when (i) sensitive to beneficiaries' age, needs, interests and economic vulnerability; (ii) adapted to local implementation contexts; and (iii) included life skills. Programme delivery through mentorship and safe space increased social capital and may be critical to improve the HIV-sensitivity of socio-economic programmes. CONCLUSIONS: A wide variety of livelihood and employability programmes were leveraged to achieve improved socio-economic and HIV-related outcomes among unemployed and out-of-school young women. To be HIV-sensitive, programmes should be designed around their interests, needs and vulnerability, adapted to local implementation contexts, and include life skills. Employment support received little attention in this literature.

An Overview of Reviews on Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care: Effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is increasingly used but diversely implemented in primary care. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of IPC in primary care settings. METHODS: An overview (review of systematic reviews) was carried out. We searched nine databases and employed a double selection and data extraction method. Patient-related outcomes were categorized, and results coded as improvement (+), worsening (-), mixed results (?) or no change (0). RESULTS: 34 reviews were included. Six types of IPC were identified: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 8), physician-nurse in primary care (n = 1), primary care physician (PCP)-specialty care provider (n = 5), PCP-pharmacist (n = 3), PCP-mental healthcare provider (n = 15), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 2). In general, IPC in primary care was beneficial for patients with variation between types of IPC. Whereas reviews about IPC in primary care (large scope) showed better processes of care and higher patient satisfaction, other types of IPC reported mixed results for clinical outcomes, healthcare use and patient-reported outcomes. Also, reviews focusing on interventions based on pre-existing and well-defined models, such as collaborative care, overall reported more benefits. However, heterogeneity between the included primary studies hindered comparison and often led to the report of mixed results. Finally, professional- and organizational-related outcomes were under-reported, and cost-related outcomes showed some promising results for IPC based on pre-existing models; results were lacking for other types. CONCLUSIONS: This overview suggests that interprofessional collaboration can be effective in primary care. Better understanding of the characteristics of IPC processes, their implementation, and the identification of effective elements, merits further attention.

An Overview of Reviews on Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care: Barriers and Facilitators.

INTRODUCTION: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is becoming more widespread in primary care due to the increasing complex needs of patients. However, its implementation can be challenging. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators of IPC in primary care settings. METHODS: An overview of reviews was carried out. Nine databases were searched, and two independent reviewers took part in review selection, data extraction and quality assessment. A thematic synthesis was carried out to highlight the main barriers and facilitators, according to the type of IPC and their level of intervention (system, organizational, inter-individual and individual). RESULTS: Twenty-nine reviews were included, classified according to six types of IPC: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 11), primary care physician (PCP)-nurse in primary care (n = 2), PCP-specialty care provider (n = 3), PCP-pharmacist (n = 2), PCP-mental health care provider (n = 6), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 5). Most barriers and facilitators were reported at the organizational and inter-individual levels. Main barriers referred to lack of time and training, lack of clear roles, fears relating to professional identity and poor communication. Principal facilitators included tools to improve communication, co-location and recognition of other professionals' skills and contribution. CONCLUSIONS: The range of barriers and facilitators highlighted in this overview goes beyond specific local contexts and can prove useful for the development of tools or guidelines for successful implementation of IPC in primary care.

Taking a critical stance towards mixed methods research: A cross-disciplinary qualitative secondary analysis of researchers' views.

Recent growth and institutionalization in the field of mixed methods research has provided fertile ground for a wide range of thoughtful criticism of how this research approach has been developed and conceptualized by some members of the mixed methods community. This criticism reflects the increasing maturity of the field as well as the different theoretical perspectives and methodological practices of researchers in different disciplines. While debates addressing these criticisms are likely to lead to valuable insights, no empirical studies have been carried out to date that have investigated researchers' critical views on the development and conceptualization of mixed methods research. This study examines the criticisms of the mixed methods field raised by a cross-national sample of researchers in education, nursing, psychology, and sociology. We carried out a secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews with 42 researchers and identified 11 different criticisms, which we classified in four domains: essence of mixed methods, philosophy, procedures, and politics. The criticisms related to the procedures domain were equally distributed among the four disciplines, while those related to the essence, philosophy and politics domains were more common among sociologists. Based on our findings, we argue that the divergence of views on foundational issues in this field reflects researchers' affiliation to different communities of practice, each having its own principles, values, and interests. We suggest that a greater awareness of this divergence of perspectives could help researchers establish effective collaboration and anticipate potential challenges when working with researchers having different methodological approaches.

Variations of mixed methods reviews approaches: A case study.

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.

A Methodological Review of Mixed Methods Research in Palliative and End-of-Life Care (2014-2019).

Mixed methods research has been increasingly recognized as a useful approach for describing and explaining complex issues in palliative care and end-of-life research. However, little is known about the use of this methodology in the field and the ways in which mixed methods studies have been reported. The purpose of this methodological review was to examine the characteristics, methodological features and reporting quality of mixed methods articles published in palliative care research. The authors screened all articles published in eight journals specialized in palliative care between January 2014 and April 2019. Those that reported a mixed methods study (n = 159) were included. The Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) criteria were used to assess reporting quality. Findings showed that 57.9% of the identified studies used a convergent design and 82.4% mentioned complementarity as their main purpose for using a mixed methods approach. The reporting quality of the articles generally showed a need for improvement as authors usually did not describe the type of mixed methods design used and provided little detail on the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods. Based on the findings, recommendations are made to improve the quality of reporting of mixed methods articles in palliative care.

Tradução e adaptação transcultural do instrumento Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool ao contexto brasileiro / Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to the brazilian context / Traducción y adaptación transcultural del instrumento Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool al contexto brasileño

Objetivo: traduzir e adaptar transculturalmente o Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool para a realidade brasileira. Métodos: a metodologia seguiu os 10 passos determinados pelo processo de tradução e adaptação transcultural conduzido por uma das equipes de trabalho do Grupo de Interesse Especial em Qualidade de Vida e o Grupo de Tradução e Adaptação Cultural. Resultados: o teste com o instrumento foi realizado a partir do desenvolvimento de duas revisões sistemáticas mistas. A versão traduzida obteve coeficiente Kappa forte/substantial (k=0,67), e foi intitulado "Instrumento de avaliação da qualidade de pesquisas com métodos mistos-Versão 2011". A versão produzida apresenta componentes estruturais e semânticos compatíveis com os da versão original, permitindo boa compreensão e traz clareza em seu conteúdo. Conclusão: o instrumento traduzido e adaptado poderá ser uma ferramenta importante para a produção científica no Brasil, otimizando a produção de revisões sistemáticas nas diversas áreas do conhecimento

Objective: Transculturally translate and adapt the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to the Brazilian reality. Methods: The methodology followed the 10 steps determined by the transcultural translation and adaptation process conducted by one of the Working Groups of the Special Interest Group on Quality of Life and the Cultural Translation and Adaptation Group. Results: o The test with the instrument was carried out from the development of two systematic systematic reviews. The translated version obtained a strong / substantial Kappa coefficient (k = 0.67), and was titled "Method of evaluating the quality of researches with mixed methods - Version 2011". The produced version presents structural and semantic components compatible with those of the original version, allowing good understanding and brings clarity in its content. Conclusion: the translated and adapted instrument can be an important tool for scientific production in Brazil, optimizing the production of systematic reviews in the different areas of knowledge

Objetivo: traducir y adaptar transculturalmente el Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool para la realidad brasileña. Métodos: la metodología siguió los 10 pasos determinados por el proceso de traducción y adaptación transcultural conducido por uno de los equipos de trabajo del Grupo de Interés Especial en Calidad de Vida y el Grupo de Traducción y Adaptación Cultural. Resultados: La prueba con el instrumento se realizó a partir del desarrollo de dos revisiones sistemáticas mixtas. La versión traducida obtuvo coeficiente Kappa fuerte / substancial (k = 0,67), y se tituló "Instrumento de evaluación de la calidad de las investigaciones con métodos mixtos-Versión 2011". L a versión producida presenta componentes estructurales y semánticos compatibles con los de la versión original, permitiendo buena comprensión y trae claridad en su contenido. Conclusión: el instrumento traducido y adaptado podría ser una herramienta importante para la producción científica en Brasil, optimizando la producción de revisiones sistemáticas en las diversas áreas del conocimiento

Health outcomes of online consumer health information: A systematic mixed studies review with framework synthesis.

The Internet has become the first source of consumer health information. Most theoretical and empirical studies are centered on information needs and seeking, rather than on information outcomes. This review's purpose is to explore and explain health outcomes of Online Consumer Health Information (OCHI) in primary care. A participatory systematic mixed studies review with a framework synthesis was undertaken. Starting from an initial conceptual framework, our specific objectives were to (a) identify types of OCHI outcomes in primary care, (b) identify factors associated with these outcomes, and (c) integrate these factors and outcomes into a comprehensive revised framework combining an information theory and a psychosocial theory of behavior. The results of 65 included studies were synthesized using a qualitative thematic data analysis. The themes derived from the literature underwent a harmonization process that produced a comprehensive typology of OCHI outcomes. The revised conceptual framework specifies four individual and one organizational level of OCHI outcomes, while including factors such as consumers' information needs and four interdependent contextual factors. It contributes to theoretical knowledge about OCHI health outcomes, and informs future research, information assessment methods, and tools to help consumers find and use health information.

Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) was developed for critically appraising different study designs. This study aimed to improve the content validity of three of the five categories of studies in the MMAT by identifying relevant methodological criteria for appraising the quality of qualitative, survey, and mixed methods studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: First, we performed a literature review to identify critical appraisal tools and extract methodological criteria. Second, we conducted a two-round modified e-Delphi technique. We asked three method-specific panels of experts to rate the relevance of each criterion on a five-point Likert scale. RESULTS: A total of 383 criteria were extracted from 18 critical appraisal tools and a literature review on the quality of mixed methods studies, and 60 were retained. In the first and second rounds of the e-Delphi, 73 and 56 experts participated, respectively. Consensus was reached for six qualitative criteria, eight survey criteria, and seven mixed methods criteria. These results led to modifications of eight of the 11 MMAT (version 2011) criteria. Specifically, we reformulated two criteria, replaced four, and removed two. Moreover, we added six new criteria. CONCLUSION: Results of this study led to improve the content validity of this tool, revise it, and propose a new version (MMAT version 2018).