↓ Skip to main content

Using framework-based synthesis for conducting reviews of qualitative studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, April 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
319 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
475 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using framework-based synthesis for conducting reviews of qualitative studies
Published in
BMC Medicine, April 2011
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-9-39
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary Dixon-Woods

Abstract

Framework analysis is a technique used for data analysis in primary qualitative research. Recent years have seen its being adapted to conduct syntheses of qualitative studies. Framework-based synthesis shows considerable promise in addressing applied policy questions. An innovation in the approach, known as 'best fit' framework synthesis, has been published in BMC Medical Research Methodology this month. It involves reviewers in choosing a conceptual model likely to be suitable for the question of the review, and using it as the basis of their initial coding framework. This framework is then modified in response to the evidence reported in the studies in the reviews, so that the final product is a revised framework that may include both modified factors and new factors that were not anticipated in the original model. 'Best fit' framework-based synthesis may be especially suitable in addressing urgent policy questions where the need for a more fully developed synthesis is balanced by the need for a quick answer. Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/29.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 475 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 14 3%
Australia 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 454 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 97 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 95 20%
Researcher 75 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 6%
Student > Bachelor 23 5%
Other 79 17%
Unknown 79 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 18%
Social Sciences 81 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 48 10%
Psychology 39 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 33 7%
Other 85 18%
Unknown 102 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2022.
All research outputs
#4,003,671
of 22,788,370 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,009
of 3,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,077
of 109,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#16
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,788,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 109,005 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.