@article{fdi:010090354,
  title = {{H}ow far is mixed methods research in the field of health policy and systems in {A}frica ? : a scoping review},
  author = {{D}e {A}llegri, {M}. and {S}ieleunou {I}. and {A}biiro, {G}.{A}. and {R}idde, {V}al{\'e}ry},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{B}oth the academic and the policy community are calling for wider application of mixed methods research, suggesting that combined use of quantitative and qualitative methods is most suitable to assess and understand the complexities of health interventions. {I}n spite of recent growth in mixed methods studies, limited efforts have been directed towards appraising and  synthetizing to what extent and how mixed methods have been applied specifically to {H}ealth {P}olicy and {S}ystems {R}esearch ({HPSR}) in low- and middle-income countries ({LMIC}s). {W}e aimed at filling this gap in knowledge,  by exploring the scope and quality of mixed methods research in the {A}frican context. {W}e conducted a scoping review applying the framework developed by {A}rksey and {O}'{M}alley and modified by {L}evac et al. to identify and extract data from relevant studies published between 1950 and 2013. {W}e limited our search to peer-reviewed {HPSR} publications in {E}nglish, which combined at least one qualitative and one quantitative method and focused on {A}frica. {A}mong the 105 studies that were retained for data extraction, over 60% were published after 2010.  {N}early 50% of all studies addressed topics relevant to {H}ealth {S}ystems, while {H}ealth {P}olicy and {H}ealth {O}utcomes studies accounted respectively for 40% and 10% of all publications. {T}he quality of the application of mixed methods varied greatly across studies, with a relatively small proportion of studies stating clearly defined research questions and differentiating quantitative and qualitative elements, including sample sizes and analytical approaches. {T}he methodological weaknesses observed could be linked to the paucity of specific training opportunities available to people interested in applying mixed methods to {HPSR} in {LMIC}s as well as to the limitations on word limit, scope and peer-review processes at the journals levels. {I}ncreasing training opportunities and enhancing journal flexibility may result in more and better quality mixed methods publications.},
  keywords = {{AFRIQUE}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{H}ealth {P}olicy and {P}lanning},
  volume = {33},
  numero = {3},
  pages = {445--455},
  ISSN = {0268-1080},
  year = {2018},
  DOI = {10.1093/heapol/czx182},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010090354},
}