ArticleBMJ open2019
Integrating quantitative and qualitative data and findings when undertaking randomised controlled trials.
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.
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
52 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinicians' and Patients' Experiences and Perceptions on the Prevention and Management of Surgical Site Infections: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.Journal of clinical nursing · 2025Pooled it
- Use of mixed methods research in intervention studies to increase young people's interest in STEM: A systematic methodological review.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Adherence, Acceptability, and Sexual Health Outcomes of the Odeya App-Based Intervention for Sexual Distress in Women With Endometriosis: Randomized Controlled Mixed Methods Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Trial
- Enhanced Stress-Resilience Training (ESRT) for graduate-entry medical students: a randomised-controlled, mixed-method investigation.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Trial
- A group psychological intervention for postnatal depression in British mothers of South Asian origin - the ROSHNI-2 RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- Participants' Perspectives on Diabetes Self-Management Programming at Church: Faith-Placed Versus Faith-Based Approach.The science of diabetes self-management and care · 2024Trial
- Efficacy of care manager-led support for family caregivers of people with dementia during the COVID-19 pandemic: a randomized controlled study.BMC geriatrics · 2022Trial
- How to embed qualitative research in trials: insights from the feasibility study of the SAFER trial programme.Trials · 2022Trial
- A randomized, feasibility trial of an exercise and nutrition-based rehabilitation programme (ENeRgy) in people with cancer.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2021Trial
- Home-based exercise for people living with frailty and chronic kidney disease: A mixed-methods pilot randomised controlled trial.PloS one · 2021Trial
- Exercise for people living with frailty and receiving haemodialysis: a mixed-methods randomised controlled feasibility study.BMJ open · 2020Trial
- Article
- Beyond Symptom Reduction: A Qualitative Study of Refugees' Experiences of a Trauma-Informed Community-Based Pain Management Program.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Article
- Preventing Youth Crime and Violence: Intervention and Evaluation Issues.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Breast ironing in Africa: a scoping review protocol.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
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
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.