Systematic reviews provide important empirical evidence for healthcare providers to make the best clinical decisions. While qualitative research provides subjective information on the human experience, quantitative research may be used to provide quantified evaluations of interventions. To overcome the lack of objectivity in qualitative research and of context considerations in quantitative research, recent efforts have focused on developing mixed-method approaches that combine meta-analysis (quantitative systematic reviews) and meta-synthesis (qualitative systematic reviews). This new idea may help conceptualize studied phenomena more thoroughly. However, the typology remains inconsistent and the currently proposed approaches lack unified guidance and principles. In this paper, "mixed methods systematic review", a term promoted by the Joanna Briggs Institute, is used to indicate the newly developed systematic review. The use of systematic review in quantitative research and in qualitative research and the use of mixed methods systematic review are introduced chronologically, with an emphasis on procedures, examples, and quality appraisal tools. The concepts and concrete procedures for integrating results from different research method are presented for researchers and healthcare providers to allow them to better understand this approach and explore related phenomena more thoroughly.
Title: 簡介混合研究方法系統性文獻回顧.
系統性文獻回顧為協助健康從業人員進行最佳臨床決策之重要實證照護參考依據。質性研究可提供完整人類經驗，量性研究則可評估介入措施效果。但為補足質性無法提供客觀數據與量性研究所欠缺之情境脈絡考量，加上混合研究日益增加，混合使用量性研究統合分析與質性研究綜合分析的概念逐漸發展而成，以助於對現象有一全面概念化。然而，此類型文獻回顧之命名方式至今仍混淆不清、缺乏一致性，且欠缺詳細步驟指引與原則。因此，本文依據Joanna Briggs Institute推廣之詞，採混合研究方法系統性文獻回顧（mixed methods systematic review）作為命名；並從量性資料系統性文獻回顧、質性資料系統性文獻回顧與混合研究方法系統性文獻回顧之脈絡依序作介紹，並聚焦於混合研究方法系統性文獻回顧之進行步驟、範例與品質評估工具。本文可提供研究者與健康從業人員於整合不同研究方法結果之概念與實際步驟參考，而提升對探索現象全貌的理解。.
Keywords: mixed method; qualitative method; quantitative method; research method; systematic review.