You're embarking on a crucial and insightful type of literature review! A mixed methods literature review isn't just two separate reviews (one quantitative, one qualitative) glued together. It's about systematically synthesizing both to provide a richer, more comprehensive understanding of your topic, highlighting areas of convergence, divergence, and expansion between the two methodological traditions.

Here's a comprehensive guide to help you structure and execute your mixed methods literature review:

---

Guide to Writing a Mixed Methods Literature Review

The goal is not just to summarize quantitative and qualitative studies separately, but to integrate their findings to present a holistic picture, identify gaps, and inform future research directions (especially if you're planning a mixed methods study yourself).

Part 1: Foundations – Understanding Your Topic & Goals

Before you even start searching, clarify your objectives.

• Define Your Topic Precisely:


• What specific phenomenon, problem, or area are you investigating?


• Be as narrow as needed to make the review manageable, but broad enough to encompass both quantitative and qualitative perspectives.


• Formulate Your Review Questions:


• These questions will guide your search and analysis. You'll likely have a mix of questions specific to each method, and overarching mixed methods questions.


• Example Topic: Patient Satisfaction with Telehealth Services


• General Question: What is currently known about patient satisfaction with telehealth services?


• Quantitative Questions:


• What are the prevalence rates or average scores of patient satisfaction with telehealth services across different populations/contexts?


• What demographic, clinical, or service-related factors are quantitatively associated with patient satisfaction with telehealth?


• What are the outcomes (e.g., adherence, health status) associated with different levels of patient satisfaction in telehealth?


• Qualitative Questions:


• What are patients' lived experiences and perceptions of telehealth services?


• What factors contribute to or detract from a positive patient experience with telehealth, from their perspective?


• How do patients describe the meaning and impact of telehealth on their care?


• Mixed Methods Integration Questions (Crucial!):


• How do qualitative accounts of patient experiences explain or elaborate on the quantitative measures of satisfaction?


• Do quantitative correlates of satisfaction align with qualitative reports of influential factors? Where are there discrepancies?


• What gaps exist in the current literature that a mixed methods approach could address?

Part 2: Systematic Search & Data Extraction

This is where you gather your raw materials.

• Develop a Comprehensive Search Strategy:


• Keywords:


• Topic-Specific Keywords: (e.g., "telehealth," "telemedicine," "virtual care," "remote health," "eHealth," "patient satisfaction," "patient experience," "service quality").


• Quantitative Methodological Keywords: (e.g., "quantitative," "survey," "questionnaire," "scale," "RCT," "randomized controlled trial," "experiment," "prevalence," "incidence," "correlation," "regression," "statistics," "cohort," "cross-sectional").


• Qualitative Methodological Keywords: (e.g., "qualitative," "interview," "focus group," "ethnography," "phenomenology," "grounded theory," "case study," "narrative," "lived experience," "perception," "perspective").


• Combinations: Use Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) to combine these. E.g., "(telehealth OR telemedicine) AND (patient satisfaction OR patient experience) AND (qualitative OR interview OR focus group)." Then repeat for quantitative.


• Databases: Search across multiple relevant databases (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Google Scholar, discipline-specific databases).


• Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria: Clearly define what studies you will include (e.g., peer-reviewed, specific date range, specific population, study types) and exclude.


• Screen and Select Studies:


• Go through titles and abstracts first.


• Then, review full texts of potentially relevant articles.


• Document your selection process (e.g., using a PRISMA flow diagram for systematic reviews).


• Data Extraction (Coding Matrix/Table):


• Create a structured table or use reference management software (e.g., EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley) or qualitative data analysis software (e.g., NVivo) to organize information from each study.


• For ALL Studies:


• Author(s), Year


• Study Aim/Purpose


• Context/Setting (e.g., primary care, oncology)


• Participant Characteristics (e.g., age, diagnosis, location)


• Theoretical Framework (if applicable)


• Key Findings (summarized)


• Limitations


• For Quantitative Studies:


• Study Design (e.g., cross-sectional survey, RCT)


• Sample Size and Sampling Method


• Key Variables Measured (e.g., satisfaction score, specific factors)


• Data Collection Instruments (e.g., validated scales)


• Statistical Analysis Methods


• Main Quantitative Results (e.g., effect sizes, p-values, correlations, prevalence rates)


• For Qualitative Studies:


• Study Design/Approach (e.g., phenomenology, ethnography, thematic analysis)


• Participant Characteristics (e.g., number of participants, how they were selected)


• Data Collection Methods (e.g., semi-structured interviews, focus groups, observations)


• Data Analysis Methods (e.g., thematic analysis, grounded theory, discourse analysis)


• Main Qualitative Themes/Categories (with illustrative quotes if space allows)

Part 3: Analysis & Synthesis – The "Mixed" Part

This is the most critical stage where you move beyond simple summarization to true integration.

• Initial Separate Analysis (Optional but helpful):


• Briefly summarize the main trends, strengths, and gaps within the quantitative literature only.


• Briefly summarize the main trends, strengths, and gaps within the qualitative literature only. This helps you get a handle on each body of work before attempting to mix them.


• Integration Strategies (The Heart of Mixed Methods):


• Convergence: Where do the quantitative and qualitative findings align or support each other?


• Example: Quantitative studies show high satisfaction scores (e.g., 8/10), and qualitative studies reveal themes of convenience and accessibility as reasons for positive experiences. This strengthens the conclusion that convenience is a major driver of satisfaction.


• Divergence/Discrepancy: Where do the findings contradict or seem to disagree? Why might this be?


• Example: Quantitative data might show no significant difference in satisfaction scores between urban and rural patients. However, qualitative data might reveal that rural patients experience significant technical difficulties (e.g., internet access) that aren't captured by the broad satisfaction scale, and they tolerate these issues because telehealth is their only option. This divergence highlights a limitation of the quantitative measure and reveals a deeper, more nuanced reality.


• Expansion/Elaboration: How do qualitative findings elaborate on or explain quantitative results? How do quantitative findings provide context or prevalence for qualitative insights?


• Example: Quantitative studies show a correlation between provider empathy and patient satisfaction. Qualitative studies provide rich descriptions and examples of what "provider empathy" looks like from the patient's perspective, explaining how it manifests and why it's important. Conversely, qualitative themes about a particular barrier (e.g., lack of digital literacy) can be contextualized by quantitative data on the prevalence of this issue in a specific population.


• Complementarity: How do quantitative and qualitative findings offer different, but equally valuable, pieces of the puzzle that together create a more complete understanding?


• Example: Quantitative data might establish the extent of patient satisfaction and identify key predictors (e.g., age, prior experience). Qualitative data might reveal the processes and mechanisms through which satisfaction is formed, such as the initial onboarding experience or the specific ways providers communicate.


• Identification of Gaps: What aspects of the topic are well-covered by one method but not the other? What areas remain unexplored by any method? What new research questions emerge that would require a mixed methods approach to answer effectively?

Part 4: Structuring Your Mixed Methods Literature Review

This is how you present your integrated analysis.

• Introduction:


• Hook: Broad statement about the importance of your topic.


• Background: Briefly introduce the topic, its significance, and why understanding it from multiple perspectives is important.


• Rationale for a Mixed Methods Review: Explain why a mixed methods approach is necessary for your literature review (e.g., "existing literature presents a fragmented picture," "quantitative data lacks depth, qualitative data lacks generalizability").


• Purpose and Scope of Your Review: Clearly state what your review aims to achieve (e.g., "This mixed methods literature review aims to synthesize quantitative and qualitative evidence regarding patient satisfaction with telehealth, identify areas of convergence and divergence, and highlight future research needs.")


• Brief Roadmap: Outline the structure of your review.


• Methodology of the Review (Your Process):


• Clearly describe your search strategy (databases, keywords, date ranges).


• State your inclusion and exclusion criteria.


• Explain your data extraction process (e.g., "A coding matrix was used to extract study characteristics and key findings...").


• Describe your synthesis approach (i.e., how you integrated quant and qual findings, referring to the strategies above: convergence, divergence, expansion).


• Mention how you assessed the quality of included studies (if applicable).


• Findings/Body Sections (Thematic Integration is Recommended):


• This is where the "mixed" truly happens. Instead of separate "Quantitative Findings" and "Qualitative Findings" sections, structure your body thematically.


• For each theme or sub-topic, integrate both quantitative and qualitative findings.


• Example (Theme: "Access and Convenience"):


• "Quantitative studies consistently demonstrate that telehealth significantly reduces travel time and costs for patients, particularly in rural areas (Smith et al., 2020; Jones & Lee, 2021). For example, a study by Smith et al. (2020) found that 85% of patients reported reduced travel burden as a key benefit, with a mean travel time saving of 45 minutes per appointment. This quantitative finding is strongly supported by qualitative accounts, where patients frequently describe the unparalleled convenience of receiving care from home (Chen, 2019; Davis & Brown, 2022). Many participants in Chen's (2019) interviews emphasized how telehealth eliminated the need for childcare or taking time off work, highlighting the profound impact on their daily lives. However, a divergence emerges when considering technological access. While quantitative surveys often report high rates of internet access (Garcia, 2020), qualitative studies reveal that inconsistent broadband quality, particularly in underserved regions, can lead to significant frustration and perceived care disruption for some patients (Kim & Miller, 2021), a nuance not fully captured by broad satisfaction scales."


• Discussion and Synthesis:


• Reiterate Key Integrated Findings: Summarize the main areas of convergence, divergence, and expansion across the quantitative and qualitative literature.


• Address Your Review Questions: Answer each of your initial review questions, drawing on the integrated evidence.


• Theoretical Implications: How do these integrated findings contribute to, challenge, or refine existing theories related to your topic?


• Practical Implications: What are the real-world implications of your findings for practitioners, policymakers, or service users?


• Limitations of the Literature: What are the weaknesses or gaps in the existing quantitative and qualitative research? (e.g., lack of diverse populations, reliance on self-report, limited longitudinal studies, methodological rigor issues).


• Future Research Recommendations: Based on the gaps and discrepancies identified through your mixed methods lens, propose specific areas for future research. Crucially, suggest how a mixed methods approach could best address these remaining questions.


• Conclusion:


• Briefly summarize the overall understanding gained from your mixed methods review.


• Reiterate the value of integrating both quantitative and qualitative perspectives.


• Offer a final, impactful statement about the importance of your findings and their implications.

---

Key Tips for Success:

• Maintain a Critical Stance: Don't just summarize; evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study, both methodologically and conceptually.


• Be Transparent: Clearly document your search and synthesis processes so others can follow your logic.


• Use Mixed Methods Language: Employ terms like "convergent," "divergent," "elaborate," "complementary," "holistic understanding" throughout your review.


• Manage Your Data: Use a robust system for organizing your extracted information (e.g., spreadsheets, NVivo, Zotero).


• Iterative Process: Literature reviews are often iterative. You may need to refine your search terms or review questions as you delve deeper into the literature.


• Focus on the "Why": Beyond what was found, always ask why these findings occurred, and how quantitative and qualitative data together explain the "why."

By following this guide, you'll be well-equipped to write a robust and insightful mixed methods literature review that genuinely advances understanding of your topic. Good luck!