We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
REVIEW
Use and misuse of mixed methods in population oral health research: A scoping review.
Community Dental Health 2018 May 31
BACKGROUND: Despite the known benefits of a mixed methods approach in health research, little is known of its use in the field of population oral health.
OBJECTIVE: To map the extent of literature using a mixed methods approach to examine population oral health outcomes.
METHODS: For a comprehensive search of all the available literature published in the English language, databases including PubMed, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source (DOSS), CINAHL, Web of Science and EMBASE (including Medline) were searched using a range of keywords from inception to October 2017. Only peer-reviewed, population-based studies of oral health outcomes conducted among non-institutionalised participants and using mixed methods were considered eligible for inclusion.
RESULTS: Only nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The most frequent oral health outcome investigated was caries experience. However, most studies lacked a theoretical rationale or framework for using mixed methods, or supporting the use of qualitative data. Concurrent triangulation with a convergent design was the most commonly used mixed methods typology for integrating quantitative and qualitative data. The tools used to collect quantitative and qualitative data were mostly limited to surveys and interviews.
CONCLUSION: With growing complexity recognised in the determinants of oral disease, future studies addressing population oral health outcomes are likely to benefit from the use of mixed methods. Explicit consideration of theoretical framework and methodology will strengthen those investigations.
OBJECTIVE: To map the extent of literature using a mixed methods approach to examine population oral health outcomes.
METHODS: For a comprehensive search of all the available literature published in the English language, databases including PubMed, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source (DOSS), CINAHL, Web of Science and EMBASE (including Medline) were searched using a range of keywords from inception to October 2017. Only peer-reviewed, population-based studies of oral health outcomes conducted among non-institutionalised participants and using mixed methods were considered eligible for inclusion.
RESULTS: Only nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The most frequent oral health outcome investigated was caries experience. However, most studies lacked a theoretical rationale or framework for using mixed methods, or supporting the use of qualitative data. Concurrent triangulation with a convergent design was the most commonly used mixed methods typology for integrating quantitative and qualitative data. The tools used to collect quantitative and qualitative data were mostly limited to surveys and interviews.
CONCLUSION: With growing complexity recognised in the determinants of oral disease, future studies addressing population oral health outcomes are likely to benefit from the use of mixed methods. Explicit consideration of theoretical framework and methodology will strengthen those investigations.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app