| Title |
What Value Can Qualitative Research Add to Quantitative Research Design? An Example From an Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Trial Feasibility Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Qualitative Health Research, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1177/1049732316662446 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francine Toye, Esther Williamson, Mark A. Williams, Jeremy Fairbank, Sarah E. Lamb |
| Abstract |
Using an example of qualitative research embedded in a non-surgical feasibility trial, we explore the benefits of including qualitative research in trial design and reflect on epistemological challenges. We interviewed 18 trial participants and used methods of Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis. Our findings demonstrate that qualitative research can make a valuable contribution by allowing trial stakeholders to see things from alternative perspectives. Specifically, it can help to make specific recommendations for improved trial design, generate questions which contextualize findings, and also explore disease experience beyond the trial. To make the most out of qualitative research embedded in quantitative design it would be useful to (a) agree specific qualitative study aims that underpin research design, (b) understand the impact of differences in epistemological truth claims, (c) provide clear thematic interpretations for trial researchers to utilize, and (d) include qualitative findings that explore experience beyond the trial setting within the impact plan. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 38% |
| Ireland | 2 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 4 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 92 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 16% |
| Researcher | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 17 | 18% |
| Unknown | 19 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 15% |
| Psychology | 12 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 10 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 17% |
| Unknown | 20 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 October 2016.
All research outputs
#6,404,293
of 23,322,258 outputs
Outputs from Qualitative Health Research
#673
of 1,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,637
of 345,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Qualitative Health Research
#26
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,855 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,321 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.