9
References
Abbott, A. (1998). The causal devolution. Sociological Methods & Research, 27(2), 148-181.
Bennett, C., Khangura, S., Brehaut, J. C., Graham, I. D., Moher, D., Potter, B. K., et al. (2011). Reporting guidelines for survey research: An analysis of published guidance and reporting practices. PLoS
Medicine, 8(8), e1001069.
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97-113.
Creswell, J. W. (2013a). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2013b). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., Klassen, A. C., Plano Clark, V. L., Smith, K. C. (2011). Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. Bethesda, MD: Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences
Research, National Institutes of Health. http://obssr.od.nih.gov/mixed_methods_research.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. (2017). CASP checklists. Retrieved December 1, 2017, from http://www.casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists.
de Vet, H. C., de Bie, R. A., van der Heijden, G. J., Verhagen, A. P., Sijpkes, P., & Knipschild, P. G. (1997). Systematic reviews on the basis of methodological criteria. Physiotherapy, 83(6), 284-289.
Draugalis, J. R., Coons, S. J., & Plaza, C. M. (2008). Best practices for survey research reports: A synopsis for authors and reviewers. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72(1),
Article 11.
Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology. (2001). Measuring and reporting sources of error in surveys. Washington DC: Statistical Policy Office, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget.
Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2002). Descriptive studies: What they can and cannot do. The Lancet, 359(9301), 145-149.
Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester, UK: Wiley Online Library.
Higgins, J. P. T., Sterne, J. A. C., Savović, J., Page, M. J., Hróbjartsson, A., Boutron, I., et al. (2016). A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. In Chandler, J., McKenzie, J., Boutron,
I. & Welch, V. (Eds.), Cochrane Methods. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 10 (Suppl 1).
Hong, Q. N. (2018). Revision of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT): A mixed methods study (Doctoral dissertation). Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montréal.
MacLehose, R. R., Reeves, B. C., Harvey, I. M., Sheldon, T. A., Russell, I. T., & Black, A. M. (2000). A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised
studies. Health Technology Assessment, 4(34), 1-154.
Morgan, R., Sterne, J., Higgins, J., Thayer, K., Schunemann, H., Rooney, A., et al. (2017). A new instrument to assess Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Exposures (ROBINS-E): Application to
studies of environmental exposure. Abstracts of the Global Evidence Summit, Cape Town, South Africa. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 9 (Suppl 1).
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD201702.
O'Cathain, A. (2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Towards a comprehensive framework. In Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed methods in social and
behavioral research (pp. 531-555). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. (2016). Levels of evidence. Retrieved February 19, 2018, from https://www.cebm.net/2016/05/ocebm-levels-of-evidence/.
Pace, R., Pluye, P., Bartlett, G., Macaulay, A. C., Salsberg, J., Jagosh, J., et al. (2012). Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed
studies review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(1), 47-53.
Plano Clark, V. L., & Ivankova, N. V. (2015). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Pluye, P., Gagnon, M. P., Griffiths, F., Johnson-Lafleur, J. (2009a). 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), 529-546.
Pluye, P., Grad, R. M., Levine, A., & Nicolau, B. (2009b). Understanding divergence of quantitative and qualitative data (or results) in mixed methods studies. International Journal of Multiple Research
Approaches, 3(1), 58-72.
Pluye, P., Garcia Bengoechea, E., Granikov, V., Kaur, N., & Tang, D. L. (2018). A world of possibilities in mixed methods: Review of the combinations of strategies used to integrate the phases, results,
and qualitative and quantitative data. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), 41-56.
Porta, M. S., Greenland, S., Hernán, M., dos Santos Silva, I., Last, J. M. (2014). A dictionary of epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sandelowski, M. (2010). What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing and Health, 33(1), 77-84.