Pillar Integration Process: A Joint Display Technique to Integrate Data in Mixed Methods Research
Abstract
Despite an emphasis on integration in mixed methods research, there remain relatively few well-articulated integration techniques for use by researchers. We developed the Pillar Integration Process, a transparent and rigorous four-stage technique for integrating and presenting qualitative and quantitative findings in a joint display. The purpose of this article is to describe the technique and illustrate how it was developed and applied using via two examples from health sciences. The first is an evaluation of a health improvement program, the second is a mixed methods systematic review to identify interacting factors which influenced decision making in orthopedics. Future research can provide additional evidence on the value of the Pillar Integration Process technique within a mixed method approach.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Pillar Integration Process was employed to map and synthesise qualitative and quantitative findings.
“The pillar integration process (PIP), a transparent and rigorous four-stage method consisting of listing, matching, checking and pillar building for integrating and presenting qualitative and quantitative findings jointly (Johnson et al. 2017), was employed to map and synthesise the extracted data visually to produce meaningful results.”
From The Usability and Experience of Artificial Intelligence‐Based Conversational Agents in Health Education for Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as Johnson et al. 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 48 · Cited by 272
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [3]3. Excerpt of the Pillar Integration Process Stage 1: Listing Process for a Mixed Methods Evidence Synthesis Case: Mixed method systematic review QUANT data QUANT categories Pillar building themes QUAL categories QUAL codes Bhandari et al., 2005 - 1) Management preference by patient age - 2) Patient medical condition (i.e. activity) - 3) Superiority of treatment opinion (mortality, QoL, function, infection rates, pain) Borkhoff et al., 2008 - 1) Patient characteristics in general - 2) Patient sex Canty 2013 - 1) Habit - 2) Learned in practice - 3) Clinical/ treatment - 4) Believes it is evidence based - 5) Practical reason (messy) TABLE
- Authors
- Johnson, R. E., Grove, A. L., & Clarke, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Warwick (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Johnson, Rebecca E.
- Venue
- Journal of Mixed Methods Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-12-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 301-320
- ISSN
- 1558-6898 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-6901
- OpenAlex
- W2773842127
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 39 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 19.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Mixed Methods Research (publishedVersion)
- Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (DRF-2013-06-064)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Keywords
- mixed methods, health research
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
