1. Experiences and Lessons from Conducting a Mixed Studies Systematic Review
Presenter: Dale Forsdyke
Supervisor: Professor Andy Smith

2. Background and Context
Crux of the debate isn't whether a literature review should be undertaken it is when and how (Dunne, 2011)
Provisional PhD title - Experiences of sports injury rehabilitation in elite women's soccer
Systematic Review title - The role of psychosocial responses to sports injury on rehabilitation outcomes in competitive athletes– a mixed method systemic review
PROSPERO registration: CRD
Ethics reference: DF/08/09/2014/01
‘In the context of your thesis rationalise why you are undertaking a systematic review’
Rationale for (adapted from Dunne, 2011):
Create rationale inc. justifying a specific research approach
Highlight pertinent lacunae in existing knowledge
Improve contextual awareness and how studied to date
Help avoid methodological and conceptual pitfalls
Aware of rather than numb to possible unhelpful preconceptions

3. ‘A systematic review is purely a function of its inclusion criteria’
Quali research designs not included or justified
AND
Mixed methods studies taken as quant despite dominant quali approach
‘A systematic review is purely a function of its inclusion criteria’

4. Framework:
Q- question
E - eligibility
S - search
I - identify
S – selection
A – appraisal
S – synthesis
(Pace et al. 2013)
‘Don’t reinvent the wheel - there are some robust quality guidelines for conducting systematic reviews’

5. Slightly messy
Presents a challenge
Yes
Synthesising research from different paradigms (qual, quant, MM) in the same systematic review- are you bonkers?
Unique and distinctive?
methodological
Evaluate contribution of ALL empirical study types
Seems philosophically ‘right’
Topic area

6. ‘Getting started is a bit like playing cat and mouse’
‘being transparent and auditable are key traits of a robust systematic review’

7. ‘Never work in isolation’
Search strategy (terms, methods, databases)
Dale, have you also thought about this?
Title screening
‘There are ethical decisions to be made when conducting a systematic review’ – ethics has moved over time
Abstract screening
Dale, why has this been included and this not?
Full text screening
Final study appraisal

8. Where and how did I lose 4 studies – arghhhh!=
17/2/14
n=324
Where and how did I lose 4 studies – arghhhh!

9. ‘All search strategies should ideally follow same data extraction protocol’

10. ‘The real critical instrument is you NOT the appraisal tool’
Pluye et al. (2011) mixed methods appraisal tool for systematic mixed studies reviews

11. For this review convergent qualitative thematic analysis was undertaken
Core Theme
Sub-sets
Studies*
Successful vs. unsuccessful rehabilitation
Direct comparison
4,9,16,21
Emotion
Mood (TMD, TNM)
Injury anxieties
Emotional integrity
2,3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9, 10, 11, 13,15,16, 17, 18, 21,22,23
Injury related cognition
Restoring the self
Basic needs fulfilment
Personal growth and development
1,3,4,5, 6, 7, 8, 10,11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23
Injury related behaviour
Coping
Social interaction
3,4, 6, 12,13,15,17,19,22,23
‘You need to rationalise your data analysis strategy’ e.g. qualifying purely quantitative work is incongruent and not the best ‘fit’
*where studies have multiple findings spanning a number of constructs these have been replicated across the core themes ( e.g. qualitative papers that infer both emotion and cognition factors having an effect on sports rehabilitation outcomes)

12. Questions?
Are systematic reviews simply regressing our topic understanding to the mean?

13. References
Dunne, C. (2011) The place of the literature review in grounded theory research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology; 14(2): Pluye, P., Gagnon, M.P., Griffiths, F. & Johnson-Lafleur, J. (2009). A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews. International Journal of Nursing Studies; 46(4), Pluye, P., Robert, E., Cargo, M., Bartlett, G., O’Cathain, A., Griffiths, F., Boardman, F., Gagnon, M.P., & Rousseau, M.C. (2011). Proposal: A mixed methods appraisal tool for systematic mixed studies reviews. Retrieved on [17/10/14] from Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6): e doi: /journal.pmed [accessed 29/10/14]