Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Purpose: Qualitative data that reflects patients' experiences are the foundation of any patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) development and validation study; however, there is limited understanding of the type of data visualization techniques that facilitate communication of this data. The goal of this targeted literature review was to investigate data visualization methods that have been used in published PROM development and validation literature to report qualitative results.
Methods: A literature search in OVID via MEDLINE was conducted among the top 10 non-disease-specific journals publishing PROM qualitative development and validation studies. Studies that reported qualitative methods to develop/validate a PROM and included data visualization in the form of tables or figures were included. Article characteristics and data visualization types were extracted.
Results: A total of 185 articles were included in data extraction. Most articles (n = 109, 59.1%) included figures (n = 172, average 2 relevant figures per article) in the form of hierarchy/flowcharts (n = 124, 72.1%) and bar charts (n = 29, 16.9%). Information reported in figures included depiction of conceptual frameworks (n = 112, 65.1%) and concept frequency (n = 40, 24.4%). Most articles (n = 152, 81.7%) included tables (n = 307, average 2 relevant tables per article). Information reported in tables included concept frequency (n = 133, 43.3%) and cognitive debriefing and revisions (n = 91, 29.6%).
Conclusion: Data visualization techniques used to report qualitative results in the identified PROM qualitative development and validation studies were heterogeneous, and many studies did not utilize any data visualization techniques. This study will inform the development of guidance for using data visualizations to report qualitative PROM research.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-025-03964-5 | DOI Listing |