↓ Skip to main content

What Value Can Qualitative Research Add to Quantitative Research Design? An Example From an Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Trial Feasibility Study

Overview of attention for article published in Qualitative Health Research, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Unknown 44 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Other 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 10 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 20%
Psychology 8 17%
Unspecified 6 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 11%
Other 8 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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
#1,574,468
of 8,482,675 outputs
Outputs from Qualitative Health Research
#180
of 942 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,143
of 255,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Qualitative Health Research
#3
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,482,675 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 942 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 255,952 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.