MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922627148 · doi:10.1093/fampra/cmz010

Practical mixed methods strategies used to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods in community-based primary health care research

2019· review· en· W2922627148 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Practice · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University
KeywordsQualitative researchMedicineScopusQualitative propertyManagement scienceMEDLINEComputer scienceSociologyMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mixed methods (MM) are common in community-based primary health care (CBPHC) research studies. Several strategies have been proposed to integrate qualitative and quantitative components in MM, but they are seldom well conceptualized and described. The purpose of the present review was to identify and describe practical MM strategies and combinations of strategies used to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods in CBPHC research. METHODS: A methodological review with qualitative synthesis (grouping) was performed. Records published in English in 2015 were retrieved from the Scopus bibliographic database. Eligibility criteria were: CBPHC empirical study, MM research with detailed description of qualitative and quantitative methods and their integration. Data were extracted from included studies and grouped using a conceptual framework comprised of three theoretical types of MM integration, the seven combinations of these types and nine practical strategies (three per type of integration) and multiple combinations of strategies. RESULTS: Among the 151 articles reporting CBPHC and MM studies retrieved, 54 (35.7%) met the inclusion criteria for this review. The included studies provided examples of the three theoretical types of MM integration, the seven combinations of these types as well as the nine practical strategies. Overall, 15 combinations of these strategies were observed. No emerging strategy was observed that was not predicted by the conceptual framework. CONCLUSIONS: This review can provide guidance to CBPHC researchers for planning, conducting and reporting practical strategies and combinations of strategies used for integrating qualitative and quantitative methods in MM research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.209
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.115
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2090.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.963
GPT teacher head0.867
Teacher spread0.096 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it