Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41436271›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Mixed-methods integration during data analysis in clinical trials of complex healthcare interventions: how is it done, and what can it do? Protocol for a systematic methodological review.

Holly Victoria Rose Sugg, Naomi Shaw, Ellen M Vesterlund, Joanne Woodford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Holly Victoria Rose SuggUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK H.V.R.Sugg@exeter.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8530-2726
Naomi ShawSchool of Health Professions, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Ellen M VesterlundDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Joanne WoodfordDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe importance of conducting qualitative research alongside clinical trials of complex healthcare interventions is well established. There are various ways in which these two methodologies can be combined in mixed-methods research, including integrating data and/or results from the qualitative and quantitative strands during analysis, using techniques such as joint displays. The potential benefits of integration during data analysis include understanding intervention mechanisms, reasons for variation in outcomes, ways of tailoring interventions to individuals and barriers and facilitators to implementation. However, integration during data analysis may rarely be undertaken in practice, and the extent to which integration can provide valuable insights appears to be underappreciated in the field.In this review, we aim to summarise current methods of integrating qualitative and quantitative raw data and/or results during analysis in clinical trials of complex healthcare interventions, and the yield of these different methods. Our specific research questions focus on (1) which integration techniques are used; (2) whether the results meet the study authors' aims and/or answer their research questions; (3) the insights obtained and/or meta-inferences generated from these techniques (classified as either global or specific, and as relational, predictive, causal, comparative or elaborative); (4) any relationship between these insights and/or meta-inferences and the integration technique used and (5) the quality of these studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science, and manually search reference lists. We will include studies if they integrate, during data analysis, raw data and/or results from a clinical (randomised, non-randomised or single-arm) trial and an embedded or subsequent associated qualitative study of a complex, non-pharmaceutical healthcare intervention (where the effects on a health outcome were measured). Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full texts and perform data extraction. We will develop a descriptive account of the data, including mapping the key characteristics of included studies and narratively reporting our findings in relation to each of our research questions. We will explore how integration was undertaken, what insights were obtained and/or meta-inferences generated, and whether and how these relate to the type of integration technique used. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethical approval. We intend to publish our findings in a peer-reviewed open-access journal and to present our findings at national and/or international conferences. REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered with Open Science Framework on 22 October 2025 (ref osf.io/yxtb9).

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicData AnalysisResearch DesignDelivery of Health CareHumansQualitative ResearchSystematic Reviews as TopicClinical trialsFeasibility StudiesHealthReviewSTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID41436271
PMCPMC12730831

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.