Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26891718›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2016

The use of purposeful sampling in a qualitative evidence synthesis: A worked example on sexual adjustment to a cancer trajectory.

Charlotte Benoot, Karin Hannes, Johan Bilsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 120 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
120citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

120 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Patient Experiences and Expectations Regarding Erectile Dysfunction Education Prior to Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Qualitative Study.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

60 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Charlotte BenootMental Health and Wellbeing Research Group (MENT), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, Brussels, 1050, Belgium. cbenoot@vub.ac.be.
Karin HannesCentre for Sociological Research, Catholic University of Leuven, Parkstraat 45, Leuven, 3000, Belgium. karin.hannes@kuleuven.be.
Johan BilsenMental Health and Wellbeing Research Group (MENT), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, Brussels, 1050, Belgium. cbenoot@vub.ac.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn increasing number of qualitative evidence syntheses papers are found in health care literature. Many of these syntheses use a strictly exhaustive search strategy to collect articles, mirroring the standard template developed by major review organizations such as the Cochrane and Campbell Collaboration. The hegemonic idea behind it is that non-comprehensive samples in systematic reviews may introduce selection bias. However, exhaustive sampling in a qualitative evidence synthesis has been questioned, and a more purposeful way of sampling papers has been proposed as an alternative, although there is a lack of transparency on how these purposeful sampling strategies might be applied to a qualitative evidence synthesis. We discuss in our paper why and how we used purposeful sampling in a qualitative evidence synthesis about 'sexual adjustment to a cancer trajectory', by giving a worked example.

methodsWe have chosen a mixed purposeful sampling, combining three different strategies that we considered the most consistent with our research purpose: intensity sampling, maximum variation sampling and confirming/disconfirming case sampling.

resultsThe concept of purposeful sampling on the meta-level could not readily been borrowed from the logic applied in basic research projects. It also demands a considerable amount of flexibility, and is labour-intensive, which goes against the argument of many authors that using purposeful sampling provides a pragmatic solution or a short cut for researchers, compared with exhaustive sampling. Opportunities of purposeful sampling were the possible inclusion of new perspectives to the line-of-argument and the enhancement of the theoretical diversity of the papers being included, which could make the results more conceptually aligned with the synthesis purpose.

conclusionsThis paper helps researchers to make decisions related to purposeful sampling in a more systematic and transparent way. Future research could confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis of conceptual enhancement by comparing the findings of a purposefully sampled qualitative evidence synthesis with those drawing on an exhaustive sample of the literature.

Indexed as

Databases, BibliographicEvidence-Based MedicineHealth Services ResearchHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMedical OncologyReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignSexual Behavior

Identifiers

PMID26891718
PMCPMC4757966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.