ArticleJournal of mixed methods research2022
Article in Journal of mixed methods research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methods of Engaging Interest-Holders in Healthcare Evidence Syntheses: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Article
- Integrating knowledge systems for holistic approaches to addressing knowledge and health inequities: combining fuzzy cognitive maps.Global health promotion · 2025Article
- Indigenous Community Views of Disability in Canada: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Four analysis moments for fuzzy cognitive mapping in participatory research.Global health action · 2024Article
- Fuzzy cognitive mapping in participatory research and decision making: a practice review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024Article
- Producing knowledge together: a participatory approach to synthesising research across a large-scale collaboration in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health.Health research policy and systems · 2024Review
- Article
- Guidance on the use of complex systems models for economic evaluations of public health interventions.Health economics · 2023Review
- Article
- Factors and Priorities Influencing Satisfaction with Care among Women Living with HIV in Canada: A Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Impact-Oriented Dialogue for Culturally Safe Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health in Bauchi State, Nigeria: Protocol for a Codesigned Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Maternal health and Indigenous traditional midwives in southern Mexico: contextualisation of a scoping review.BMJ open · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mixed methods research is well-suited to grapple with questions of what counts as valid knowledge across different contexts and perspectives. This article introduces Weight of Evidence as a transformative procedure for stakeholders to interpret, expand on and prioritize evidence from evidence syntheses, with a focus on engaging populations historically excluded from planning and decision making. This article presents the procedure's five steps using pilot data on perinatal care of immigrant women in Canada, engaging family physicians and birth companions. Fuzzy cognitive mapping offers an accessible and systematic way to generate priors to update published literature with stakeholder priorities. Weight of Evidence is a transparent procedure to broaden what counts as expertise, contributing to a more comprehensive, context-specific, and actionable understanding.
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.