CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 471Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsDelphi Technique in Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A worked example of “best fit” framework synthesis: a systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents

Open access
Carroll, Christopher, Booth, Andrew, Cooper, Katy·2011·BMC Medical Research Methodology
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-11-29PMC PMC3068987
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A variety of different approaches to the synthesis of qualitative data are advocated in the literature. The aim of this paper is to describe the application of a pragmatic method of qualitative evidence synthesis and the lessons learned from adopting this "best fit" framework synthesis approach. METHODS: An evaluation of framework synthesis as an approach to the qualitative systematic review of evidence exploring the views of adults to the taking of potential agents within the context of the primary prevention of colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Twenty papers from North America, Australia, the UK and Europe met the criteria for inclusion. Fourteen themes were identified a priori from a related, existing conceptual model identified in the literature, which were then used to code the extracted data. Further analysis resulted in the generation of a more sophisticated model with additional themes. The synthesis required a combination of secondary framework and thematic analysis approaches and was conducted within a health technology assessment timeframe. CONCLUSION: The novel and pragmatic "best fit" approach to framework synthesis developed and described here was found to be fit for purpose. Future research should seek to test further this approach to qualitative data synthesis.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2288-11-29

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 A priori themes reflecting people's views about taking potential chemopreventive agents, derived from Huffman 2002[16].
Figure 1 A priori themes reflecting people's views about taking potential chemopreventive agents, derived from Huffman 2002[16].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Conceptual model to describe views and experiences of adults concerning the taking of potential chemoprevention agents.
Figure 2 Conceptual model to describe views and experiences of adults concerning the taking of potential chemoprevention agents.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 34 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Grayson L, Gomersall A: A difficult business: finding the evidence for social science reviews. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice. Working paper 19. 2003
  2. Huffman S: Can Marketing Of Multiple Vitamin/Mineral Supplements Reach the Poor?. 2002, The Vitaldía Project, Bolivia, [ http://www.phishare.org/files/338_Can%20Marleting...Vitaldia.pdf ]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 471

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Carroll, C., Booth, A., & Cooper, K.
Affiliations
University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Carroll, Christopher
ORCID
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2011-03-16
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
29-29
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1471-2288-11-29
PMC
PMC3068987
OpenAlex
W2068075745
Cited by
461
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 14
FWCI
2.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
qualitative evidence synthesis, chemopreventive agents, patient perspectives, conceptual model, thematic analysis, health technology assessment
MeSH terms
Adult, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Humans, Models, Psychological, Research Design, Colorectal Neoplasms, Anticarcinogenic Agents, Chemoprevention

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