Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42807484›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Generating meta-inferences for program improvement recommendations: mixed methods integration in joint displays for program evaluation.

Laura Monkman, Dhitinut Ratnapradipa, Sergi Fàbregues, Timothy C Guetterman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Laura MonkmanDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Dhitinut RatnapradipaCreighton University, School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, United States.
Sergi FàbreguesDepartment of Psychology, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.
Timothy C GuettermanDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.

Funding

NCIPC CDC HHS R43 CE003549
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Integration is a defining feature of mixed methods research, and the generation of meta-inferences is the overarching outcome of a mixed methods study. Despite their role in demonstrating the added value of mixed methods research, meta-inferences are frequently limited to determining fit between the results, through a comparison of quantitative and qualitative results. This article builds on a small but growing literature that has expanded conceptualization of meta-inferences by proposing an additional type that generates program recommendations. We advocate enlarging this framework to include other types of meta-inferences to give researchers additional options for addressing research questions. Thus, the aim of this paper is to demonstrate an underutilized type of meta-inference that generates program implications and recommendations. Because the goal of evaluation is the utilization of results to make program decisions, this example provides an opportunity to showcase the value of meta-inferences as applied, real world, actionable insights. We provide three examples of generating meta-inferences that focus on identifying implications and program recommendations using joint displays from an ongoing evaluation of a prevention program.

Indexed as

integrationjoint displaysmeta-inferencesmixed methods analysismixed methods < research methodology

Identifiers

PMID42807484
PMCPMC13617135

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.