The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings
Open accessAbstract
The new imperative in the health disciplines to be more methodologically inclusive has generated a growing interest in mixed research synthesis, or the integration of qualitative and quantitative research findings. Qualitative metasummary is a quantitatively oriented aggregation of qualitative findings originally developed to accommodate the distinctive features of qualitative surveys. Yet these findings are similar in form and mode of production to the descriptive findings researchers often present in addition to the results of bivariate and multivariable analyses. Qualitative metasummary, which includes the extraction, grouping, and formatting of findings, and the calculation of frequency and intensity effect sizes, can be used to produce mixed research syntheses and to conduct a posteriori analyses of the relationship between reports and findings. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Res Nurs Health 30: 99–111, 2007
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010) · doi:10.4135/9781506335193 · Cited by 6,215
Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research
Maxwell, J. (1992) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.62.3.8323320856251826 · Cited by 2,951 · cited 2×
“After extracting the relevant findings, we grouped findingswejudgedtobetopicallysimilartogether, as shown in Table 2. Seeing all of the findings pertaining to one topic together preserves the complexity of the findings as given in the research reports and, thereby, optimizes the descriptive validity ( Maxwell, 1992 )…”
BackgroundMethodAppraising the Evidence: Reviewing Disparate Data Systematically
Hawker, S., Payne, S., Kerr, C., Hardey, M., & Powell, J. (2002) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732302238251 · Cited by 1,216
Qualitative Metasynthesis: Reflections on Methodological Orientation and Ideological Agenda
Thorne, S., Jensen, L., Kearney, M. H., Noblit, G., & Sandelowski, M. (2004) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732304269888 · Cited by 749
Self-citationEvidence, hierarchies, and typologies: horses for courses: Table 1
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2003) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.57.7.527 · Cited by 539
Research works printed but not linked: 46
- 10.1177/1055329003252879 · DOI
- Alderson P., 2004, Cochrane reviewers' handbook 4.2.2 [updated quarterly]. In The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004
- 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00729.x · DOI
- 10.1097/00006199-200503000-00007 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/nur.10092 · DOI
- Cooper H., 1998, Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews
- 10.1080/0954012021000039806 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2000.00212.x · DOI
- 10.1093/fampra/15.4.319 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2002.tb00070.x · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1440-1800.2002.00146.x · DOI
- *Fourney A.M.(1999).Adherence to HIV/AIDS therapies among low‐literacy populations: The ALP project. Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Texas‐Houston Health Science Center Houston.
- 10.1300/J187v03n02_05 · DOI
- +Garcia‐Teague L.A.(2002).Factors associated with appointment and medication adherence in low‐income Latinas living with the human immunodeficiency virus. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California Los Angeles.
- 10.1080/13645570500155078 · DOI · Paper page
- Higgins J.P.T. &Green S. (Eds.). (2005 May).Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (4.2.5). Retrieved January 15 2006 fromwww.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/hbook.htm.
- 10.1080/0954012031000134700 · DOI
- 10.1177/104973299129121884 · DOI
- 10.1177/1468794106058866 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1089/108729103322277420 · DOI
- 10.1177/019394599802000403 · DOI
- 10.4135/9781412985000 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1136/jech.2005.034199 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1023/A:1027379223537 · DOI · Paper page
- Popay J. &Roen K.(2003 May 23).Synthesis of evidence from research using diverse study designs: A preliminary review of methodological work. Unpublished report for the Social Care Institute of Excellence Lancaster University UK.
- 10.1080/0954012031000068380 · DOI
- Ragin C., 2000, Fuzzy‐set social science
- 10.5993/AJHB.26.1.3 · DOI
- 10.1080/09540120050123774 · DOI
- 10.1080/07399330390199537 · doi:10.1080/07399330390199537
- 10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G · doi:10.1002/1098-240x(200008)23:4<334::aid-nur9>3.0.co;2-g
- 10.1002/nur.1025 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/1049732303253488 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1097/00006199-200307000-00004 · DOI · Paper page
- Sandelowski M., 2007, Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research
- Sandelowski M., 2006, Defining and designing mixed research synthesis studies, Research in the Schools, 13, 29
- Sandelowski M., Comparability work and the management of difference in research synthesis studies, Social Science & Medicine
- 10.1080/09540120220104712 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10461-005-9001-6 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00303-6 · DOI
- 10.1521/aeap.13.3.189.19747 · doi:10.1521/aeap.13.3.189.19747
- 10.1023/A:1004691318311 · DOI
- West S., 2002, Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47, AHRQ Pub. No. 02‐E016
- 10.1067/mob.2001.114032 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1026435213337 · doi:10.1023/a:1026435213337
- 10.1080/09540120412331290158 · DOI
Cited by
Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review
Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019) · Journal of Planning Education and Research · doi:10.1177/0739456x17723971 · Cited by 3,467
Pluye, P., & Hong, Q. N. (2014) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182440 · Cited by 1,363
Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Bujold, M., & Wassef, M. (2017) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2 · Cited by 754
“Meta-summary [60] To quantitatively aggregate qualitative findings.”
The ABC of systematic literature review: the basic methodological guidance for beginners
Mohamed Shaffril, H. A., Samsuddin, S. F., & Abu Samah, A. (2021) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-020-01059-6 · Cited by 656
Appraising Qualitative Research for Evidence Syntheses: A Compendium of Quality Appraisal Tools
Majid, U., & Vanstone, M. (2018) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732318785358 · Cited by 301
Metadata
- Authors
- Sandelowski, M., Barroso, J., & Voils, C. I.
- Venue
- Research in Nursing & Health
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-01-22
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 99-111
- ISSN
- 0160-6891 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-240X
- OpenAlex
- W1986026434
- Cited by
- 528
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 6.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/nur.20176
- The paper
- Sandelowski, M., Barroso, J., & Voils, C. I. (2007). Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings. Research in Nursing & Health. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20176
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
