Dataset Information

Quantitizing findings from qualitative studies for integration in mixed methods reviewing.

ABSTRACT: In mixed methods reviewing, data from quantitative and qualitative studies are combined at the review level. One possible way to combine findings of quantitative and qualitative studies is to quantitize qualitative findings prior to their incorporation in a quantitative review. There are only a few examples of the quantification of qualitative findings within this context. This study adds to current research on mixed methods review methodology by reporting the pilot implementation of a new four-step quantitizing approach. We report how we extract and quantitize the strength of relationships found in qualitative studies by assigning correlations to vague quantifiers in text fragments. This article describes (a) how the analysis is prepared; (b) how vague quantifiers in text fragments are organized and transformed to numerical values; (c) how qualitative studies as a whole are assigned effect sizes; and (d) how the overall mean effects size and variance can be calculated. The pilot implementation shows how findings from 26 primary qualitative studies are transformed into mean effect sizes and corresponding variances.

SUBMITTER: van Grootel L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7317911 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quantitizing findings from qualitative studies for integration in mixed methods reviewing.

van Grootel Leonie L Balachandran Nair Lakshmi L Klugkist Irene I van Wesel Floryt F

Research synthesis methods 20200315 3

In mixed methods reviewing, data from quantitative and qualitative studies are combined at the review level. One possible way to combine findings of quantitative and qualitative studies is to quantitize qualitative findings prior to their incorporation in a quantitative review. There are only a few examples of the quantification of qualitative findings within this context. This study adds to current research on mixed methods review methodology by reporting the pilot implementation of a new four- ...[more]

PMID: 32104971

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPeople living with asthma require regular reviews to address their concerns and questions, assess control, review medication, and support self-management. However, practical barriers to attending face-to-face consultations might limit routine reviews. Reviewing asthma using asynchronous digital health interventions could be convenient for patients and an efficient way of maintaining communication between patients and healthcare professionals and improving health outcomes. We, therefore, aim to conduct a mixed-methods systematic review to assess the effectiveness of reviewing asthma by asynchronous digital health interventions and explore the views of patients and healthcare professionals about the role of such interventions in delivering asthma care.MethodsWe will search MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from 2001 to present without imposing any language restrictions. We are interested in studies of asynchronous digital health interventions used either as a single intervention or contributing to mixed modes of review. Two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts, and retrieve potentially relevant studies for full assessment against the eligibility criteria and extract data. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion with the review team. We will use 'Downs and Black' checklist, 'Critical Appraisal Skills Programme', and 'Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool' to assess methodological quality of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies respectively. After synthesising quantitative (narrative synthesis) and qualitative (thematic synthesis) data separately, we will integrate them following methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.ConclusionThe findings of this review will provide insights into the role of asynchronous digital health interventions in the routine care of people living with asthma.Trial registrationSystematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022344224.

Project description:BackgroundIn remote rural Tanzania, the rate of linkage into HIV care was estimated at 28% in 2014. This study explored facilitators and barriers to linkage to HIV care at individual/patient, health care provider, health system, and contextual levels to inform eventual design of interventions to improve linkage to HIV care.MethodsWe conducted a descriptive qualitative study nested in a cohort study of 1012 newly diagnosed HIV-positive individuals in Mbeya region between August 2014 and July 2015. We conducted 8 focus group discussions and 10 in-depth interviews with recently diagnosed HIV-positive individuals and 20 individual interviews with healthcare providers. Transcripts were analyzed inductively using thematic content analysis. The emergent themes were then deductively fitted into the four level ecological model.ResultsWe identified multiple factors influencing linkage to care. HIV status disclosure, support from family/relatives and having symptoms of disease were reported to facilitate linkage at the individual level. Fear of stigma, lack of disclosure, denial and being asymptomatic, belief in witchcraft and spiritual beliefs were barriers identified at individual's level. At providers' level; support and good patient-staff relationship facilitated linkage, while negative attitudes and abusive language were reported barriers to successful linkage. Clear referral procedures and well-organized clinic procedures were system-level facilitators, whereas poorly organized clinic procedures and visit schedules, overcrowding, long waiting times and lack of resources were reported barriers. Distance and transport costs to HIV care centers were important contextual factors influencing linkage to care.ConclusionLinkage to HIV care is an important step towards proper management of HIV. We found that access and linkage to care are influenced positively and negatively at all levels, however, the individual-level and health system-level factors were most prominent in this setting. Interventions must address issues around stigma, denial and inadequate awareness of the value of early linkage to care, and improve the capacity of HIV treatment/care clinics to implement quality care, particularly in light of adopting the 'Test and Treat' model of HIV treatment and care recommended by the World Health Organization.

Project description:BackgroundOver the past 50 years, the content and structure of antenatal education classes have varied to reflect social norms of the time, the setting and context in which they have been held and who has facilitated them. In recent times, antenatal and parenting education classes have become a smorgasbord of information, offering a range of diverse content. Where and how parents-to-be may access formal antenatal and parenting education classes are also varied. Even before the lockdown challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic, many antenatal and parenting education classes had become available and accessible online. While the flexibility and accessibility of this option are apparent, scant research to date has reported on parents' experiences of undertaking online antenatal education.ObjectivesThe objectives of this study were to explore new parents' experiences of engaging in online antenatal education, and to discover how consumers of online antenatal education perceive it should be designed and delivered.Design/methodsA mixed-methods design was used for this study, which was conducted with 294 past enrolees in a range of online antenatal and early parenting education programmes delivered by one private provider in Australia. The past enrolees were invited to participate in the study by email, wherein a link to an online information sheet and survey containing closed- and open-ended questions was provided. The responses to the open-ended questions that are reported in this article were analysed using a thematic approach that involved coding, sub-categorizing and then categorizing the data.ResultsA total of 108 participants provided qualitative data about the delivery and design of online antenatal education and information. The data were captured in three themes: video control and content, accessibility and pre-/intra-programme support.ConclusionsThe results of this study provide important insights for the development of online antenatal education programmes and courses that will be of interest to antenatal educators, maternity services and maternity care policy developers. Specifically, millennial parents want trustworthy and accurate antenatal education that is delivered in a framework that aligns with and builds on adult-learning principles. The diversity of families and of expectant parents' learning styles is also important to recognize in antenatal education curricula.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study compares rapid and traditional analyses of a UK health service evaluation dataset to explore differences in researcher time and consistency of outputs.DesignMixed methods study, quantitatively and qualitatively comparing qualitative methods.SettingData from a home birth service evaluation study in a hospital in the English National Health Service, which took place between October and December 2014. Two research teams independently analysed focus group and interview transcript data: one team used a thematic analysis approach using the framework method, and the second used rapid analysis.ParticipantsHome birth midwives (6), midwifery support workers (4), commissioners (4), managers (6), and community midwives (12) and a patient representative (1) participated in the original study.Primary outcome measuresTime taken to complete analysis in person hours; analysis findings and recommendations matched, partially matched or not matched across the two teams.ResultsRapid analysis data management took less time than thematic analysis (43 hours vs 116.5 hours). Rapid analysis took 100 hours, and thematic analysis took 126.5 hours in total, with interpretation and write up taking much longer in the rapid analysis (52 hours vs 8 hours). Rapid analysis findings overlapped with 79% of thematic analysis findings, and thematic analysis overlapped with 63% of the rapid analysis findings. Rapid analysis recommendations overlapped with 55% of those from the thematic analysis, and thematic analysis overlapped with 59% of the rapid analysis recommendations.ConclusionsRapid analysis delivered a modest time saving. Excessive time to interpret data in rapid analysis in this study may be due to differences between research teams. There was overlap in outputs between approaches, more in findings than recommendations. Rapid analysis may have the potential to deliver valid, timely findings while taking less time. We recommend further comparisons using additional data sets with more similar research teams.

Dataset Information

Quantitizing findings from qualitative studies for integration in mixed methods reviewing.

Publications

Quantitizing findings from qualitative studies for integration in mixed methods reviewing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets