Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41372818›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025

Qualitative dyadic analysis in care partnership research: a scoping review.

Andrea S E Parks, Lesley Gotlib Conn, Bahar Aria, Manisha Reza Paul, Allan Li, Agessandro Abrahao, Lorne Zinman, Joanna E M Sale

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Andrea S E ParksInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 4th Floor - 155 College Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M6, Canada. andrea.parks@mail.utoronto.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-8894-592X
Lesley Gotlib ConnInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 4th Floor - 155 College Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3769-5590
Bahar AriaMusculoskeletal Health and Outcomes Research, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada.
Manisha Reza PaulMusculoskeletal Health and Outcomes Research, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada.
Allan LiMusculoskeletal Health and Outcomes Research, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada.
Agessandro AbrahaoSunnybrook Research Institute, 2075 Bayview Avenue,, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1142-2842
Lorne ZinmanSunnybrook Research Institute, 2075 Bayview Avenue,, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8096-8366
Joanna E M SaleInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 4th Floor - 155 College Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0389-3038

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CaregiversQualitative ResearchChronic DiseaseHumansResearch DesignCare partnershipsDyadic analysisDyadic methodsQualitative health researchResearch methodology

Identifiers

PMID41372818
PMCPMC12801508

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.