The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using mind mapping techniques for rapid qualitative data analysis in public participation processes
Open accessAbstract
Context In a health service environment where timescales for patient participation in service design are short and resources scarce, a balance needs to be achieved between research rigour and the timeliness and utility of the findings of patient participation processes. Objective To develop a pragmatic mind mapping approach to managing the qualitative data from patient participation processes. Design While this article draws on experience of using mind maps in a variety of participation processes, a single example is used to illustrate the approach. In this example mind maps were created during the course of patient participation focus groups. Two group discussions were also transcribed verbatim to allow comparison of the rapid mind mapping approach with traditional thematic analysis of qualitative data. Setting and participants The illustrative example formed part of a local alcohol service review which included consultation with local alcohol service users, their families and staff groups. Findings The mind mapping approach provided a pleasing graphical format for representing the key themes raised during the focus groups. It helped stimulate and galvanize discussion and keep it on track, enhanced transparency and group ownership of the data analysis process, allowed a rapid dynamic between data collection and feedback, and was considerably faster than traditional methods for the analysis of focus groups, while resulting in similar broad themes. Conclusion This study suggests that the use of a mind mapping approach to managing qualitative data can provide a pragmatic resolution of the tension between limited resources and quality in patient participation processes.
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
Qualitative methods for assessing health care.
Fitzpatrick, R., & Boulton, M. (1994) · Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.3.2.107 · Cited by 298
Cited by
Taylor, B., Henshall, C., Kenyon, S., Litchfield, I., & Greenfield, S. (2018) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019993 · Cited by 659
Slomian, J., Emonts, P., Vigneron, L., Acconcia, A., Glowacz, F., Reginster, J. Y., Oumourgh, M., & Bruyère, O. (2017) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1398-1 · Cited by 97
Penney, L. S., & Haro, E. (2019) · Journal of Pain Research · doi:10.2147/jpr.s185652 · Cited by 32
Horwood, J., Pithara, C., Lorenc, A., Kesten, J. M., Murphy, M., Turner, A., Farr, M., Banks, J., Redwood, S., Lambert, H., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Sociology · doi:10.3389/fsoc.2022.970333 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Burgess‐Allen, J., & Owen‐Smith, V.
- Venue
- Health Expectations
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-11-04
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 406-415
- ISSN
- 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
- 1369-7625
- OpenAlex
- W2144086372
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 16.38
- 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 mind mapping techniques for rapid qualitative data analysis in public participation processes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00594.x
- The paper
- Burgess‐Allen, J., & Owen‐Smith, V. (2010). Using mind mapping techniques for rapid qualitative data analysis in public participation processes. Health Expectations. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00594.x
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.