Methods for data extraction and data transformation in convergent integrated mixed methods systematic reviews.

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES JBI evidence synthesis Pub Date : 2025-01-20 DOI:10.11124/JBIES-24-00331
Lucylynn Lizarondo, Cindy Stern, Susan Salmond, Judith Carrier, Kay Cooper, Christina Godfrey, Manda Vandyk, Danielle Pollock, Kendra Rieger, Joao Apostolo, Pamela Kirkpatrick, Kelli Borges Dos Santos, Heather Loveday
{"title":"Methods for data extraction and data transformation in convergent integrated mixed methods systematic reviews.","authors":"Lucylynn Lizarondo, Cindy Stern, Susan Salmond, Judith Carrier, Kay Cooper, Christina Godfrey, Manda Vandyk, Danielle Pollock, Kendra Rieger, Joao Apostolo, Pamela Kirkpatrick, Kelli Borges Dos Santos, Heather Loveday","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this guidance paper is to describe data transformation involving qualitization, including when and how to undertake this process, and to clarify how it aligns with data extraction in order to expand on the current guidance for JBI convergent integrated mixed methods systematic reviews (MMSRs).</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The convergent integrated approach to MMSRs involves combining extracted data from both quantitative studies (including the quantitative components of mixed methods studies) and qualitative studies (including the qualitative components of mixed methods studies). This process requires data transformation, which can occur either by converting qualitative data into quantitative data (ie, quantitizing) or converting quantitative data into qualitative data (ie, qualitizing). Data transformation involving qualitization is poorly understood in the context of MMSRs, and there is confusion regarding how to undertake this process, with much of the literature specific to primary mixed methods studies. There is a need to expand current guidance and provide more practical advice to reviewers on how to undertake this process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The JBI MMSR Methodology Group took a multipronged approach to update its guidance. First, a structured search of the literature was conducted to determine what is known about data transformation, followed by analysis of a sample of systematic reviews that claimed to use the JBI convergent integrated approach to MMSRs. Approaches were summarized and used to inform the development of draft guidance. This guidance was iteratively revised following a series of online meetings, as well as presented to evidence synthesis experts at an international conference. Finally, the guidance was submitted to the JBI International Scientific Committee for discussion, feedback, and ratification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There is uncertainty in the literature regarding the process of data transformation within the context of MMSRs, with ill-defined approaches provided and variation in practice. In JBI convergent integrated MMSRs, it is recommended that data extraction from quantitative studies (or mixed method studies reporting quantitative findings) stays as close as possible to the data reported in the primary studies. Where data are absent or insufficient to meet the needs of the MMSR, systematic reviewers may need to construct the narrative representation using relevant data from the primary studies. Following data extraction, the process of qualitization occurs where extracted data (both quantitative and qualitative) are assembled, and reviewers are required to conduct detailed examination across data to identify likenesses and create categories based on similarities in meaning.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive guidance currently available for data extraction and qualitization for MMSRs. However, it is important to acknowledge the inherent variability in MMSRs and our methodology may need tailoring for certain situations. Further work will focus on examining how certainty and confidence in findings can be assessed within the framework of MMSRs.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI evidence synthesis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00331","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this guidance paper is to describe data transformation involving qualitization, including when and how to undertake this process, and to clarify how it aligns with data extraction in order to expand on the current guidance for JBI convergent integrated mixed methods systematic reviews (MMSRs).

Introduction: The convergent integrated approach to MMSRs involves combining extracted data from both quantitative studies (including the quantitative components of mixed methods studies) and qualitative studies (including the qualitative components of mixed methods studies). This process requires data transformation, which can occur either by converting qualitative data into quantitative data (ie, quantitizing) or converting quantitative data into qualitative data (ie, qualitizing). Data transformation involving qualitization is poorly understood in the context of MMSRs, and there is confusion regarding how to undertake this process, with much of the literature specific to primary mixed methods studies. There is a need to expand current guidance and provide more practical advice to reviewers on how to undertake this process.

Methods: The JBI MMSR Methodology Group took a multipronged approach to update its guidance. First, a structured search of the literature was conducted to determine what is known about data transformation, followed by analysis of a sample of systematic reviews that claimed to use the JBI convergent integrated approach to MMSRs. Approaches were summarized and used to inform the development of draft guidance. This guidance was iteratively revised following a series of online meetings, as well as presented to evidence synthesis experts at an international conference. Finally, the guidance was submitted to the JBI International Scientific Committee for discussion, feedback, and ratification.

Results: There is uncertainty in the literature regarding the process of data transformation within the context of MMSRs, with ill-defined approaches provided and variation in practice. In JBI convergent integrated MMSRs, it is recommended that data extraction from quantitative studies (or mixed method studies reporting quantitative findings) stays as close as possible to the data reported in the primary studies. Where data are absent or insufficient to meet the needs of the MMSR, systematic reviewers may need to construct the narrative representation using relevant data from the primary studies. Following data extraction, the process of qualitization occurs where extracted data (both quantitative and qualitative) are assembled, and reviewers are required to conduct detailed examination across data to identify likenesses and create categories based on similarities in meaning.

Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive guidance currently available for data extraction and qualitization for MMSRs. However, it is important to acknowledge the inherent variability in MMSRs and our methodology may need tailoring for certain situations. Further work will focus on examining how certainty and confidence in findings can be assessed within the framework of MMSRs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
融合集成混合方法中的数据提取和数据转换方法。
目的:本指南文件的目的是描述涉及定性的数据转换,包括何时以及如何进行这一过程,并阐明它如何与数据提取保持一致,以便扩展JBI融合集成混合方法系统审查(MMSRs)的当前指南。介绍:mmrs的趋同集成方法涉及从定量研究(包括混合方法研究的定量成分)和定性研究(包括混合方法研究的定性成分)中提取的数据。这个过程需要数据转换,可以通过将定性数据转换为定量数据(即量化)或将定量数据转换为定性数据(即定性)来实现。在MMSRs的背景下,涉及定性的数据转换理解得很差,并且关于如何进行这一过程存在混淆,许多文献专门针对初级混合方法研究。有必要扩大目前的指导,并就如何进行这一过程向审稿人提供更实际的建议。方法:JBI MMSR方法学小组采用多管齐下的方法更新其指南。首先,对文献进行结构化搜索,以确定对数据转换的了解,然后对声称使用JBI收敛集成方法的mmsr系统综述样本进行分析。对各种方法进行了总结,并用于指导草案的制定。该指南在一系列在线会议之后进行了反复修订,并在一次国际会议上提交给证据合成专家。最后,该指南提交给JBI国际科学委员会进行讨论、反馈和批准。结果:文献中关于MMSRs背景下的数据转换过程存在不确定性,提供的方法定义不清,实践中存在差异。在JBI收敛集成MMSRs中,建议从定量研究(或报告定量结果的混合方法研究)中提取的数据尽可能接近于原始研究中报告的数据。如果数据缺失或不足以满足MMSR的需要,系统审稿人可能需要使用原始研究的相关数据构建叙述性表示。在数据提取之后,在收集提取的数据(定量和定性)的过程中进行定性,并且要求审稿人对数据进行详细检查,以识别相似性并基于意义上的相似性创建类别。结论:据我们所知,这是目前可用于MMSRs数据提取和鉴定的最全面的指南。然而,重要的是要认识到mmrs的内在可变性,我们的方法可能需要针对某些情况进行调整。进一步的工作将侧重于审查如何在MMSRs框架内评估调查结果的确定性和可信度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JBI evidence synthesis
JBI evidence synthesis Nursing-Nursing (all)
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
218
期刊最新文献
Conducting Pairwise and Network Meta-analyses in Updated and Living Systematic Reviews: a Scoping Review Protocol. Effectiveness of Combined Physical and Psychological Interventions on Anxiety and Depression Symptoms in Adult Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: a Systematic Review Protocol. Factors affecting decisions to use antibiotic-sparing treatment approaches in women with uncomplicated urinary tract infections: a scoping review protocol. Parent and Carer Experiences of Health Care Professionals' Communications About a Child's Higher Weight: a Qualitative Systematic Review. Methods for data extraction and data transformation in convergent integrated mixed methods systematic reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1