ArticleResearch synthesis methods2020
Quantitizing findings from qualitative studies for integration in mixed methods reviewing.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Caregivers' experiences and perspectives on caring for the elderly during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative systematic review.Journal of nursing management · 2022Pooled it
- What do Tanzanian Research Ethics Committees prioritise? A quantitative analysis of reviewer comments using Emanuel's framework.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Navigating qualitative methods choices in dissemination and implementation research.Implementation science : IS · 2025Article
- Promoting Work-Related Well-Being of After-School Staff Via Effectiveness and Connectedness: A Mixed Method Study.Children and youth services review · 2025Article
- Factors Influencing Consumer Behavior and Purchasing Decisions Regarding Mud Crabs (Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Applying qualitative methods to experimental designs: A tutorial for the behavioral sciences.PloS one · 2025Article
- Pediatric DTC Genetic Testing for Adult-Onset Inherited Cancer Risk: The Perspectives of High-Risk Parents.Public health genomics · 2025Article
- Quantitizing findings from qualitative studies for integration in mixed methods reviewing.Research synthesis methods · 2020Article
- Implementation Challenges of a Multi-Center Financial Navigation Intervention: A Qualitative Analysis of Operational Process Data.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In mixed methods reviewing, data from quantitative and qualitative studies are combined at the review level. One possible way to combine findings of quantitative and qualitative studies is to quantitize qualitative findings prior to their incorporation in a quantitative review. There are only a few examples of the quantification of qualitative findings within this context. This study adds to current research on mixed methods review methodology by reporting the pilot implementation of a new four-step quantitizing approach. We report how we extract and quantitize the strength of relationships found in qualitative studies by assigning correlations to vague quantifiers in text fragments. This article describes (a) how the analysis is prepared; (b) how vague quantifiers in text fragments are organized and transformed to numerical values; (c) how qualitative studies as a whole are assigned effect sizes; and (d) how the overall mean effects size and variance can be calculated. The pilot implementation shows how findings from 26 primary qualitative studies are transformed into mean effect sizes and corresponding variances.
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.