Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33776586›Full record

ArticleCounselling and psychotherapy research2021

Mixing qualitative methods versus methodologies: A critical reflection on communication and power in inpatient care.

Michelle O'Reilly, Nikki Kiyimba, Alison Drewett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Counselling and psychotherapy research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Finding a path in a methodological jungle: a qualitative research of resilience.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2023
    Article
  15. 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

3 authors.

Michelle O'ReillyCollege of Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities University of Leicester & Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust Leicester UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1978-6405
Nikki KiyimbaBethlehem Tertiary Institute, School of Social Practice Tauranga New Zealand.
Alison DrewettFaculty of Health Sciences, School of Allied Sciences De Montfort University Leicester UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper offers an illustrative example to demonstrate one way of combining qualitative methods. The context for the study was a UK inpatient psychiatric hospital. Data set one was collected from weekly ward rounds where inpatient staff met with autistic patients to review medication, listen to patient concerns and make plans or adjustments in light of this. Data set two was reflective discursive interviews with patients and staff. The research objective was to critically consider the potential reasons for discrepancies in dissatisfaction reports from patients in the interviews, compared to relative compliance exhibited by patients in the ward rounds. Utilising a video-reflexive design and critical discursive psychology approach, both data sets were analysed together. It is possible to simultaneously analyse two different data sets, one naturally occurring and one researcher generated because of the epistemological congruence in the overall design. We have presented an argument for the benefits of mixing two qualitative methods, thereby extending the mixed-methods evidence base beyond the traditional discussions of quantitative and qualitative paradigms.

Indexed as

critical discursive psychologyepistemologyinpatient caremixed qualitative methodspowervideo‐reflexive ethnography

Identifiers

PMID33776586
PMCPMC7983978

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.