↓ Skip to main content

Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2014
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
27 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
446 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
443 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-14-108
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zachary Munn, Kylie Porritt, Craig Lockwood, Edoardo Aromataris, Alan Pearson

Abstract

The importance of findings derived from syntheses of qualitative research has been increasingly acknowledged. Findings that arise from qualitative syntheses inform questions of practice and policy in their own right and are commonly used to complement findings from quantitative research syntheses. The GRADE approach has been widely adopted by international organisations to rate the quality and confidence of the findings of quantitative systematic reviews. To date, there has been no widely accepted corresponding approach to assist health care professionals and policy makers in establishing confidence in the synthesised findings of qualitative systematic reviews.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 443 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Uganda 1 <1%
Unknown 440 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 77 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 9%
Researcher 36 8%
Other 24 5%
Student > Postgraduate 24 5%
Other 92 21%
Unknown 151 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 84 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 75 17%
Social Sciences 29 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 24 5%
Psychology 19 4%
Other 55 12%
Unknown 157 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 12 April 2021.
All research outputs
#1,500,963
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#187
of 2,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,899
of 253,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
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 253,068 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.