Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2024 May;15(3):450-465.
doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1698. Epub 2024 Jan 9.

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

Reem El Sherif  1 , Pierre Pluye  1 , Quan Nha Hong  2 , Benoît Rihoux  3
Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

Reem El Sherif et al. Res Synth Methods. 2024 May.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: guidance; qualitative comparative analysis; systematic mixed studies reviews; worked example.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Shaw RL, Larkin M, Flowers P. Expanding the evidence within evidence‐based healthcare: thinking about the context, acceptability and feasibility of interventions. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2014;19(6):201‐203.
    1. Hong QN, Rees R, Sutcliffe K, Thomas J. Variations of mixed methods reviews approaches: a case study. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(6):795‐811.
    1. El Sherif R, Langlois A, Pandu X, et al. Identifying empirical studies for mixed studies reviews: the mixed filter and the automated text classifier. Educ Inf. 2020;36:101‐105. doi:10.3233/EFI‐190347
    1. Hong QN, Gonzalez‐Reyes A, Pluye P. Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(3):459‐467. doi:10.1111/jep.12884
    1. Hong QN, Pluye P, Bujold M, Wassef M. Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):61.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources