ArticleResearch synthesis methods2020
Developing methods for the overarching synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence: The interweave synthesis approach.
Article in Research synthesis methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- What are the effects of animals on the health and wellbeing of residents in care homes? A systematic review of the qualitative and quantitative evidence.BMC geriatrics · 2023Pooled it
- The Role of Animal-Assisted Therapy in Enhancing Patients' Well-Being: Systematic Study of the Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence.JMIRx med · 2024Review
- Effectiveness and experiences of the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) Model in developing competencies among healthcare professionals: a mixed methods systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Developing methods for the overarching synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence: The interweave synthesis approach.Research synthesis methods · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The incorporation of evidence derived from multiple research designs into one single synthesis can enhance the utility of systematic reviews making them more worthwhile, useful, and insightful. Methodological guidance for mixed-methods synthesis continues to emerge and evolve but broadly involves a sequential, parallel, or convergent approach according to the degree of independence between individual syntheses before they are combined. We present two case studies in which we used novel and innovative methods to draw together the findings from individual but related quantitative and qualitative syntheses to aid interpretation of the overall evidence base. Our approach moved beyond making a choice between parallel, sequential, or convergent methods to interweave the findings of individual reviews and offers three key innovations to mixed-methods synthesis methods: The use of intersubjective questions to understand the findings of the individual reviews through different lenses, Immersion of key reviewers in the entirety of the evidence base, and Commencing the process during the final stages of the synthesis of individual reviews, at a point where reviewers are developing an understanding of initial findings. Underlying our approach is the process of exploration and identification of links between and across review findings, an approach that is fundamental to all evidence syntheses but usually occurs at the level of the study. Adapting existing methods for exploring and identifying patterns and links between and across studies to interweave the findings between and across reviews may prove valuable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.