ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Qualitative dyadic analysis in care partnership research: a scoping review.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Companion Value Co-Creation and Well-Being in Older Adults with Chronic Illness: A Cross-Sectional Dyadic Study in Spain.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Sustaining Community Implementation of a Caregiver-Mediated Intervention- Learnings From the WHO-Caregiver Skills Training in India.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic illness impacts not only individuals affected by it, but also those who care for them. Care partnerships recognize that health conditions are often shared, dyadic experiences. Qualitative dyadic analysis, which foregrounds the dyad as the unit of analysis, is a method that can enhance understanding of illness as a joint experience. However, when perspectives of dyad members are collected separately, their subsequent analysis as a unit can be challenging.
objectiveTo review and summarize qualitative literature where data have been collected through separate individual interviews with patient and care partner dyads and analyzed at the dyadic level.
methodsA scoping review guided by Joanna Briggs Institute methodology was undertaken. Databases (Ovid's Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO; EBSCO CINAHL; and ProQuest Sociological Abstracts) were searched in February 2024. Eligible articles included peer-reviewed literature published in English from 2010 onwards documenting qualitative dyadic analysis of individual interviews collected from patient and care partner dyads. Title and abstracts were screened and the full text of all potentially eligible articles was reviewed by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted using a table and results were summarized using frequency counts and qualitative content analysis.
results7,494 records were identified and screened. 113 reports of 112 unique studies fulfilled eligibility criteria and were included. Numerous methodologies and analytic methods were reported, many of which incorporated methods from different qualitative traditions, often with variable sequencing of analytic steps that were infrequently well described. Studies were not routinely conceptualized at the dyadic level and underlying epistemological assumptions were rarely discussed despite their essential role in grounding dyadic analysis.
conclusionsWhen conducting qualitative dyadic analysis, researchers should consider dyadic study conceptualization from study outset. The purpose of the analysis, the analytic steps taken, and their alignment with underlying epistemology and other incorporated methodologies should be clearly documented and reported.
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.