Diagrammatic Elicitation: Defining the Use of Diagrams in Data Collection

The use of graphic representations of experience and the social environment in the data collection process is an emerging approach. The terms diagramming, mapping and drawing are often used interchangeably, with no common interdisciplinary understanding of what they mean. The lack of a unifying terminology has resulted in simultaneous but separate developments undermining a more coherent approach to this emergent method. By defining what a diagram is and examining where diagramming fits amongst other data collection approaches, this paper proposes the term diagrammatic elicitation to refer to the use of diagrams in the data collection process. Two subcategories of this approach include: (a ) participant - led diagrammatic elicitation, where participants create original diagrams and (b ) researcher - led diagrammatic elicitation, where the researcher draws the diagram during the data collection process for discussion or participants edit a researcher - prepared diagram. Establishing these terms will allow researchers to share best practice and developments across disciplines

Covid-19 research evidence: An international survey exploring views on useful sources, preferred formats, and accessibility

INTRODUCTION: In a pandemic, stakeholders such as policy makers, clinicians, patients, and the public need access to high-quality, timely, relevant research evidence in a format that is understandable and applicable. OBJECTIVES: An online survey was used to determine where a global audience finds research evidence about COVID-19 and how they prefer to keep up to date. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted an online survey of people interested in research in English and Spanish. We used a convenience sample of people visiting websites and social media accounts of Cochrane, an international organisation that collates systematic reviews of research.  RESULTS: 831 people with various roles and locations responded over a short period with little active promotion. Healthcare professionals, members of the public, and policy influencers wanted research evidence to inform decisions about COVID-19. More than half found research evidence from government websites (52%), international organisations (57%), journals (56%), and evidence collation organisations (60%) useful. People wanted research evidence about COVID-19 formats such as lay summaries (60%), online systematic reviews (60%), short summaries with commentaries (51%), and visual summaries (48%). People preferred to be kept up to date about COVID-19 research via email updates and newsletters, tailored to people’s interests (34%), traditional media (13%) and social media (12%). CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible to collect feedback rapidly using a simple online survey. Websites from official organisations were key sources of COVID-19 research evidence. More research is needed on how best to provide evidence that is easy to access and understand

The efficiency and effectiveness of utilizing diagrams in interviews: an assessment of participatory diagramming and graphic elicitation

Abstract Background This paper focuses on measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of two diagramming methods employed in key informant interviews with clinicians and health care administrators. The two methods are 'participatory diagramming', where the respondent creates a diagram that assists in their communication of answers, and 'graphic elicitation', where a researcher-prepared diagram is used to stimulate data collection. Methods These two diagramming methods were applied in key informant interviews and their value in efficiently and effectively gathering data was assessed based on quantitative measures and qualitative observations. Results Assessment of the two diagramming methods suggests that participatory diagramming is an efficient method for collecting data in graphic form, but may not generate the depth of verbal response that many qualitative researchers seek. In contrast, graphic elicitation was more intuitive, better understood and preferred by most respondents, and often provided more contemplative verbal responses, however this was achieved at the expense of more interview time. Conclusion Diagramming methods are important for eliciting interview data that are often difficult to obtain through traditional verbal exchanges. Subject to the methodological limitations of the study, our findings suggest that while participatory diagramming and graphic elicitation have specific strengths and weaknesses, their combined use can provide complementary information that would not likely occur with the application of only one diagramming method. The methodological insights gained by examining the efficiency and effectiveness of these diagramming methods in our study should be helpful to other researchers considering their incorporation into qualitative research designs

A multidisciplinary systematic review of the use of diagrams as a means of collecting data from research subjects: application, benefits and recommendations

BACKGROUND: In research, diagrams are most commonly used in the analysis of data and visual presentation of results. However there has been a substantial growth in the use of diagrams in earlier stages of the research process to collect data. Despite this growth, guidance on this technique is often isolated within disciplines. METHODS: A multidisciplinary systematic review was performed, which included 13 traditional healthcare and non-health-focused indexes, non-indexed searches and contacting experts in the field. English-language articles that used diagrams as a data collection tool and reflected on the process were included in the review, with no restriction on publication date. RESULTS: The search identified 2690 documents, of which 80 were included in the final analysis. The choice to use diagrams for data collection is often determined by requirements of the research topic, such as the need to understand research subjects' knowledge or cognitive structure, to overcome cultural and linguistic differences, or to understand highly complex subject matter. How diagrams were used for data collection varied by the degrees of instruction for, and freedom in, diagram creation, the number of diagrams created or edited and the use of diagrams in conjunction with other data collection methods. Depending on how data collection is structured, a variety of options for qualitative and quantitative analysis are available to the researcher. The review identified a number of benefits to using diagrams in data collection, including the ease with which the method can be adapted to complement other data collection methods and its ability to focus discussion. However it is clear that the benefits and challenges of diagramming depend on the nature of its application and the type of diagrams used. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The results of this multidisciplinary systematic review examine the application of diagrams in data collection and the methods for analyzing the unique datasets elicited. Three recommendations are presented. Firstly, the diagrammatic approach should be chosen based on the type of data needed. Secondly, appropriate instructions will depend on the approach chosen. And thirdly, the final results should present examples of original or recreated diagrams. This review also highlighted the need for a standardized terminology of the method and a supporting theoretical framework

How do we know when research from one setting can be useful in another? A review of external validity, applicability and transferability frameworks.

OBJECTIVE: To review published frameworks that included criteria for the assessment of external validity, applicability and transferability in their assessment of health research. METHODS: Five databases were searched for articles relating to the assessment of external validity or applicability and transferability in health research. A coding framework was developed inductively and used to assess which types of criteria were included in the frameworks. RESULTS: Thirty-eight articles describing 25 frameworks were identified. Eleven focused solely on the assessment of applicability and transferability; 14 presented more general decision-making or evidence appraisal frameworks. The criteria were synthesized into four main categories: setting, intervention, outcomes and evidence. None of the frameworks covered all the criteria identified. A major limitation was the lack of empirical data used to develop many frameworks and the apparent lack of assessment of their perceived utility. CONCLUSION: A validated framework of applicability and transferability would help those aiming to encourage research use, as well as those conducting research. Greater understanding of applicability and transferability could help to encourage the appropriate use of research and the development of research that is more useful