Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26185482›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of social research methodology

Capturing complexity: Mixing methods in the analysis of a European tobacco control policy network.

Heide Weishaar, Amanda Amos, Jeff Collin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of social research methodology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Tobacco Control and Health Advocacy in the European Union: Understanding Effective Coalition-Building.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2016
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Heide WeishaarGlobal Public Health Unit, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh.
Amanda AmosCentre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh.
Jeff CollinGlobal Public Health Unit, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh.

Funding

Tobacco Companies, Public Policy and Global HealthR01CA091021 · NCI · U OF L LONDON SCH/HYGIENE &TROPICAL MED · PI LEE, KELLEY · 2001 to 2018
$5.1M
Tobacco Companies, Global Governance and Public HealthR01CA160695 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF BATH · PI GILMORE, ANNA B · 2011 to 2013
$1.3M
Medical Research Council MR/K023195/1NCI NIH HHS R01 CA091021NCI NIH HHS R01 CA160695
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social network analysis (SNA), a method which can be used to explore networks in various contexts, has received increasing attention. Drawing on the development of European smoke-free policy, this paper explores how a mixed method approach to SNA can be utilised to investigate a complex policy network. Textual data from public documents, consultation submissions and websites were extracted, converted and analysed using plagiarism detection software and quantitative network analysis, and qualitative data from public documents and 35 interviews were thematically analysed. While the quantitative analysis enabled understanding of the network's structure and components, the qualitative analysis provided in-depth information about specific actors' positions, relationships and interactions. The paper establishes that SNA is suited to empirically testing and analysing networks in EU policymaking. It contributes to methodological debates about the antagonism between qualitative and quantitative approaches and demonstrates that qualitative and quantitative network analysis can offer a powerful tool for policy analysis.

Indexed as

plagiarism detection softwarepolicy analysispolicy networksocial network analysis

Identifiers

PMID26185482
PMCPMC4500196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.