Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31772096›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Integrating quantitative and qualitative data and findings when undertaking randomised controlled trials.

David A Richards, Patricia Bazeley, Gunilla Borglin, Peter Craig, Richard Emsley, Julia Frost, Jacqueline Hill, Jeremy Horwood, Hayley Anne Hutchings, Clare Jinks and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Preventing Youth Crime and Violence: Intervention and Evaluation Issues.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  17. Breast ironing in Africa: a scoping review protocol.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

19 authors.

David A RichardsInstitute of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, UK D.A.Richards@exeter.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8821-5027
Patricia BazeleyTransitional Research and Social Innovation Group, Western Sydney University, Penrith South, New South Wales, Australia.
Gunilla BorglinDepartment of Care Science, Malmo University, Malmo, Skåne, Sweden.
Peter CraigMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Richard EmsleyDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, London, UK.
Julia FrostInstitute of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3503-5911
Jacqueline HillInstitute of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, UK.
Jeremy HorwoodPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Hayley Anne HutchingsMedical School, Swansea University, Swansea, West Glamorgan, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4155-1741
Clare JinksSchool of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.
Alan MontgomeryNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK.
Graham MooreSchool of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, South Glamorgan, UK.
Vicki L Plano ClarkSchool of Education, University of Cincinnati College of Education Criminal Justice and Human Services, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9709-7982
Sarah Tonkin-CrineDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, and NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Julia WadePopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Fiona C WarrenInstitute of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, UK.
Sally WykeInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Bridget YoungInstitute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Alicia O'CathainMedical Care Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4033-506X

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU15Department of Health HPRU-2012-10041Medical Research Council G0800792Medical Research Council G0901335Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/15Medical Research Council MR/K023233/1Medical Research Council MR/K025635/1Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is common to undertake qualitative research alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) when evaluating complex interventions. Researchers tend to analyse these datasets one by one and then consider their findings separately within the discussion section of the final report, rarely integrating quantitative and qualitative data or findings, and missing opportunities to combine data in order to add rigour, enabling thorough and more complete analysis, provide credibility to results, and generate further important insights about the intervention under evaluation. This paper reports on a 2 day expert meeting funded by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council Hubs for Trials Methodology Research with the aims to identify current strengths and weaknesses in the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods in clinical trials, establish the next steps required to provide the trials community with guidance on the integration of mixed methods in RCTs and set-up a network of individuals, groups and organisations willing to collaborate on related methodological activity. We summarise integration techniques and go beyond previous publications by highlighting the potential value of integration using three examples that are specific to RCTs. We suggest that applying mixed methods integration techniques to data or findings from studies involving both RCTs and qualitative research can yield insights that might be useful for understanding variation in outcomes, the mechanism by which interventions have an impact, and identifying ways of tailoring therapy to patient preference and type. Given a general lack of examples and knowledge of these techniques, researchers and funders will need future guidance on how to undertake and appraise them.

Indexed as

Evaluation Studies as TopicQualitative ResearchHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicintegrationqualitativequantitativeresearch methodstrials

Identifiers

PMID31772096
PMCPMC6886933

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.