Skip to main content

Table 3 Identified themes and quality assessment of included papers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool [45]

From: Clinicians’ attitudes and perceived barriers and facilitators to cancer treatment clinical practice guideline adherence: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative literature

  O'Brien (2016) [54] Shelton (2019) [55] Otte (2017) [53] Brouwers (2014) [56] Bristow (2018) [57] Brown (2016) [58] Carrick (1998) [59] Fonteyne (2018) [60] Gattellari (2001) [61] Graham (2007) [15] Grilli (1991) [62] Ismaila (2018) [63] Jagsi (2014) [64] Ward (1997) [65] White (2010) [66]
MMAT Quality assessment   Qualitative            
  Quantitative   
  Are there clear research questions? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
  Do the collected data allow to [researchers to] address the research questions? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
MMAT–Qualitative Is the qualitative approach appropriate to answer the research question? Y Y Y Y            
Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question? Y Y Y Y            
Are the findings adequately derived from the data? Y Y Y Y            
Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by data? Y Y Y CT            
Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis and interpretation? Y Y Y Y            
MMAT–Quantitative Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the research question?    Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CT Y Y Y Y
Is the sample representative of the target population?    Y Y Y CT Y CT Y Y N CT CT CT CT
Are the measurements appropriate?    Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CT Y Y Y Y
Is the risk of nonresponse bias low?    CT CT CT CT CT CT Y CT CT CT CT CT CT
Is the statistical analysis appropriate to answer the research question?    Y CT Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CT Y
  1. The randomized studies section of the MMAT the quantitative non-randomized and mixed methods sections were omitted from the table, as no studies fitted within those criteria. Y (Yes); CT (Can’t tell)