# The Use of Mixed Methods in Research on Resilience Post Sexual Assault: An Integrative Review

## TL;DR

This paper reviews how mixed-methods research helps understand resilience after sexual assault by combining quantitative and qualitative approaches.

## Contribution

The study highlights the underutilization of visual synthesis tools in trauma research and emphasizes the need for intentional integration strategies.

## Key findings

- Six studies showed varied use of mixed-methods approaches to study resilience post-sexual assault.
- Only one study used a joint display to visually represent integration of qualitative and quantitative data.
- Measures of resilience varied widely, reflecting its multidimensional nature.

## Abstract

Background: Sexual assault affects millions globally each year, yet research on survivors’ resilience remains limited and methodologically inconsistent. Resilience after sexual assault is a multidimensional and deeply personal process shaped by psychological, social, and systemic influences. Understanding this complexity requires research methodologies that can capture both measurable patterns and lived experiences. Objectives: This integrative review explores how mixed-methods research (MMR) has been used to study resilience and healing following sexual assault. Methods: Using the framework by Whittemore and Knafl, four databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and EMBASE) were searched for peer-reviewed primary research articles published between 2014 and 2024. Studies were screened and appraised independently by two reviewers using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria and a modified Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice (JHNEBP) tool. Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria, revealing substantial variation in how mixed-methods approaches were applied. Half of the studies cited a “completeness” rationale for integrating qualitative and quantitative strands, while others emphasized enhancement, triangulation, or discovery of new insights. Integration strategies included connecting datasets sequentially, merging findings at the interpretation stage, or building new frameworks from combined results. However, only one study used a joint display to visually represent integration, highlighting an ongoing underutilization of visual synthesis tools in trauma research. Measures of resilience and associated outcomes also varied widely across studies, underscoring the complex and multidimensional nature of resilience following sexual assault. Conclusions: This review suggests that MMR can offer a deeper, more nuanced understanding of resilience among sexual assault survivors and calls attention to the need for intentional integration strategies to maximize insight.