MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311678042 · doi:10.1111/jan.15536

Decision tree for identifying pertinent integration procedures and joint displays in mixed methods research

2022· article· en· W4311678042 on OpenAlexaff
Ahtisham Younas, Ángela Durante

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceManagement scienceJoint (building)Tree (set theory)Decision treeData miningEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To propose a decision tree for identifying appropriate integration procedures and joint displays for achieving integration in mixed methods studies. DESIGN: A methodological discussion. DATA SOURCES: Methodological literature including mixed methods textbooks, methodological reviews and studies published in the last 10 years (2012-2022). IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Mixed methods are instrumental to study complex nursing care processes and health-human phenomena. Nurse researchers can use this decision tree to choose the most appropriate integration procedures to overcome the integration challenge when designing and conducting mixed methods nursing studies. CONCLUSION: Integration procedures and joint displays are the most widely used methods for tackling the integration challenge in mixed methods research (MMR). The multifaceted and contingent nature of these methods are beneficial for their tailored and adapted use at the data collection, analysis, interpretation and reporting levels. The use of the most pertinent integration procedures and joint displays is critical for ensuring quality in MMR. IMPACT: A growing methodological literature on MMR offers a wide range of integration procedures and techniques. Therefore, choosing appropriate integration procedures and analysis methods can be challenging for nurse researchers interested in conducting mixed methods studies. A decision tree is developed outlining 14 integration procedures and their corresponding mixed methods designs, purposes and joint displays. Examples of mixed methods studies in the discipline of nursing are presented to illustrate the implementation of the integration procedures. The decision tree can serve as a straightforward methodological tool for decision making in MMR. Nurse researchers can effectively use this decision tree for research and teaching purposes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No direct patient or public contribution.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.292
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.456
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2920.456
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.010
Bibliometrics0.0220.017
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.014
Open science0.0050.012
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.698
GPT teacher head0.755
Teacher spread0.056 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207