quantitative research questions about public order and safety

Top 10 questions about the Department of Public Safety

Can you tell me more about the department of public safety.

The Department of Public Safety provides a safe and secure learning environment for the Lafayette community. The staff consists of commissioned police officers with full police powers and security officers. Officers patrol the campus and surrounding area around the clock every day of the year. All Lafayette officers are certified in first aid, CPR and automated external defibrillator. Public Safety is open and staffed 24 hours a day every day of the year. In addition to the police and security function, the department is also responsible for Environmental, Health & Safety (EHS) of the campus. The EHS section consists of certified specialists who conduct: building and laboratory inspections; ergonomic, lighting, indoor air quality surveys; fire exit drills and EHS-related training.  Public Safety also administers all transportation services including parking and shuttle buses.

What should I do if I am the victim of a crime?

If you are a victim of a crime, please report the incident to the Department of Public Safety as soon as possible.  It is also important to preserve any evidence that might be available for collection and analysis. A member of the Public Safety staff will handle your complaint professionally and sensitively. If crimes are not reported, little can be done to prevent other community members from becoming victims of a similar offense.

What is the difference between a Campus Police Officer and a Security Officer?

Pursuant to Pennsylvania law, Campus Police Officers have the same authority as municipal police officers, including arrest powers on College-owned property and contiguous streets and areas. Security Officers patrol campus buildings and enforce College policy and procedures. Security Officers assist Campus Police Officers as necessary. A Campus Police Officer wears a dark navy blue shirt and a security officer wears a light blue shirt.

What are Leopard Alerts and how do I sign up for them?

Leopard Alerts is a notification system that enables Lafayette students, faculty, staff, parents and community to receive alerts on their cellphones via text and/or email in the event of an emergency on campus. Use of the system is reserved for significant emergencies or dangerous situations involving an immediate threat to the health or safety of students or employees. Leopard Alerts relies on the cellphone number stored in Banner by an employee or student. Haven’t shared a cellphone yet or fear your emergency contact may be out of date? Update it now in Banner. Parents and neighbors will have a separate registration process. Learn more

What services does the department provide?

We provide around the clock police and security services to keep the campus community safe. Our officers also offer training to the community in a variety of topics including: crime prevention; Rape Aggression Defense-RAD (for women only); and fire safety. Additionally, we are responsible for providing Environmental, Health and Safety services for the campus. Finally, we administer all parking and transportation services.

What is the Good Samaritan Policy? How does it work?

The Good Samaritan Policy was established to help prevent serious medical consequences for someone involving high risk drinking or someone who is experiencing a drug overdose. The College has in place a practice of providing amnesty for those who report students at risk. It states the following: In the event that a student or student organization assists a Lafayette College student who is intoxicated, or who is experiencing a drug overdose, in procuring public safety and/or professional medical assistance, neither the intoxicated/overdosed student nor the individual or group who provides assistance for that individual will be subject to formal College disciplinary action for (1) being intoxicated/overdosed, or (2) having provided that person with alcohol. This refers to isolated incidents only and does not excuse or protect those who flagrantly and/or repeatedly violate the College’s alcohol policy. It applies only to cases of suspected extreme intoxication or other life-threatening circumstances due to alcohol or drugs and does not extend to related infractions such as assault or property damage. Although formal disciplinary action will not be invoked, mandatory referrals for educational sessions and/or assessment may be made. The Good Samaritan policy does not apply to a person or persons who delivered or distributed a controlled substance. Additionally, the Good Samaritan policy does not apply to situations where College administrators, staff or faculty members observe or report a violation of the College’s drug or alcohol policies.

How are violations of the Student Code of Conduct handled?

All alleged violations of the Student Code of Conduct are referred to the Office of Student Development. The office involves students, faculty and staff in the administration of the Student Code of Conduct and informs students of their rights and responsibilities as members of the community through a variety of means, including the Student Handbook . The program promotes adherence to the behavioral standards agreed upon by the campus community and provides an adjudication process that is characterized by integrity, respect, fairness, and individualized learning. http://conduct.lafayette.edu

How are violations of law handled?

In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the grading of crimes are as follows:  Summary Offenses, Misdemeanors, and Felonies.  An example of a summary offense is the unlawful Purchase, Consumption, Possession, or Transportation of liquor or malt or brewed beverages (underage drinking/possession).  These cases can be initiated by a campus police officer issuing a citation to the offender.  The case is then referred to a Magisterial District Judge for disposition.  Misdemeanor and Felony arrests are more serious in nature.  A person arrested on felony charges is arraigned in front of a Magisterial District Judge, and then processed at the Central Booking Center.

What are the LCAT shuttle buses?

The Lafayette College Area Transportation (LCAT) shuttle buses have an expansive schedule that connects the main campus with the Arts campus, downtown Easton/bus station, the College’s athletic fields and local shopping areas. There is a smart phone mobile app available which utilizes a live online tracking system to show the shuttle location. You can track the shuttle and download the mobile app from the Public Safety website http://publicsafety.lafayette.edu/parking/ .  There is also a special shuttle that runs at the beginning and end of each semester that provides transportation between campus and Lehigh Valley International Airport (LVIA).

What should I know about parking registration, rules & violations?

All students who bring a motor vehicle to Lafayette must register their vehicle with Public Safety regardless of where the vehicle will be parked. Registration requests must be completed online at the Public Safety web page. Once the parking registration request is reviewed and approved, you may bring your Student ID to the Public Safety Office to pick up your parking sticker. Parking assignments are enforced Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., and each registrant is expected to park where he/she is assigned. If your assigned lot is full, use the Markle Parking Deck or Leopard Parking Deck and report the condition immediately to the Public Safety Department. Lafayette College reserves the right to alter parking assignments on a permanent or temporary basis when new construction, major repairs, and emergency situations require such changes. For complete details see the Fines and Regulation section of the Public Safety LCAT Shuttle, Parking and Transportation Services web page.

Students residing in off-campus housing, either in College-owned or privately owned apartments, may park on city streets only if they register their vehicles with the City of Easton, according to prescribed city guidelines. In addition, students must simultaneously register their motor vehicles with the Department of Public Safety. A campus registration fee is not charged to off-campus students; however, these students do not have the privilege of parking in on-campus lots between 7:30 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday or during restricted periods (e.g. football games, large campus-wide events). At no time may vehicles be parked in unauthorized and prohibited areas such as Red Tow-Away Zones, Yellow No Parking Zones, faculty residence spaces or handicap spaces without a proper handicap permit. Failure to comply with guidelines will result in disciplinary action taken; i.e., loss of parking privilege, the withholding of grades or transcripts, denial of registration for classes, etc. http://publicsafety.lafayette.edu/parking/

Fines $20   Parking Violations (General/Misc.) $25   No Parking Zone (yellow) $50   Red Tow-Away Zone + towing and daily storage costs $50   Failure to Register $50   Careless/Reckless Driving $100 Handicap Area

Quantitative Research: Examples of Research Questions and Solutions

Are you ready to embark on a journey into the world of quantitative research? Whether you’re a seasoned researcher or just beginning your academic journey, understanding how to formulate effective research questions is essential for conducting meaningful studies. In this blog post, we’ll explore examples of quantitative research questions across various disciplines and discuss how StatsCamp.org courses can provide the tools and support you need to overcome any challenges you may encounter along the way.

Understanding Quantitative Research Questions

Quantitative research involves collecting and analyzing numerical data to answer research questions and test hypotheses. These questions typically seek to understand the relationships between variables, predict outcomes, or compare groups. Let’s explore some examples of quantitative research questions across different fields:

• What is the relationship between class size and student academic performance?
• Does the use of technology in the classroom improve learning outcomes?
• How does parental involvement affect student achievement?
• What is the effect of a new drug treatment on reducing blood pressure?
• Is there a correlation between physical activity levels and the risk of cardiovascular disease?
• How does socioeconomic status influence access to healthcare services?
• What factors influence consumer purchasing behavior?
• Is there a relationship between advertising expenditure and sales revenue?
• How do demographic variables affect brand loyalty?

Stats Camp: Your Solution to Mastering Quantitative Research Methodologies

At StatsCamp.org, we understand that navigating the complexities of quantitative research can be daunting. That’s why we offer a range of courses designed to equip you with the knowledge and skills you need to excel in your research endeavors. Whether you’re interested in learning about regression analysis, experimental design, or structural equation modeling, our experienced instructors are here to guide you every step of the way.

Bringing Your Own Data

One of the unique features of StatsCamp.org is the opportunity to bring your own data to the learning process. Our instructors provide personalized guidance and support to help you analyze your data effectively and overcome any roadblocks you may encounter. Whether you’re struggling with data cleaning, model specification, or interpretation of results, our team is here to help you succeed.

Courses Offered at StatsCamp.org

• Latent Profile Analysis Course : Learn how to identify subgroups, or profiles, within a heterogeneous population based on patterns of responses to multiple observed variables.
• Bayesian Statistics Course : A comprehensive introduction to Bayesian data analysis, a powerful statistical approach for inference and decision-making. Through a series of engaging lectures and hands-on exercises, participants will learn how to apply Bayesian methods to a wide range of research questions and data types.
• Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Course : Dive into advanced statistical techniques for modeling complex relationships among variables.
• Multilevel Modeling Course : A in-depth exploration of this advanced statistical technique, designed to analyze data with nested structures or hierarchies. Whether you’re studying individuals within groups, schools within districts, or any other nested data structure, multilevel modeling provides the tools to account for the dependencies inherent in such data.

As you embark on your journey into quantitative research, remember that StatsCamp.org is here to support you every step of the way. Whether you’re formulating research questions, analyzing data, or interpreting results, our courses provide the knowledge and expertise you need to succeed. Join us today and unlock the power of quantitative research!

Follow Us On Social! Facebook | Instagram | X

933 San Mateo Blvd NE #500, Albuquerque, NM 87108

4414 82 nd Street #212-121 Lubbock, TX 79424

Monday – Friday: 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM

© Copyright 2003 - 2024 | All Rights Reserved Stats Camp Foundation 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Organization.

• (855) 776-7763

Training Maker

All Products

Qualaroo Insights

ProProfs.com

• Get Started Free

FREE. All Features. FOREVER!

Try our Forever FREE account with all premium features!

How to Write Quantitative Research Questions: Types With Examples

Market Research Specialist

Emma David, a seasoned market research professional, specializes in employee engagement, survey administration, and data management. Her expertise in leveraging data for informed decisions has positively impacted several brands, enhancing their market position.

Has it ever happened that you conducted a quantitative research study and found out the results you were expecting are quite different from the actual results?

This could happen due to many factors like the unpredictable nature of respondents, errors in calculation, research bias, etc. However, your quantitative research usually does not provide reliable results when questions are not written correctly.

We get it! Structuring the quantitative research questions can be a difficult task.

Hence, in this blog, we will share a few bits of advice on how to write good quantitative research questions. We will also look at different types of quantitative research questions along with their examples.

Let’s start:

How to Write Quantitative Research Questions?

When you want to obtain actionable insight into the trends and patterns of the research topic to make sense of it, quantitative research questions are your best bet.

Being objective in nature, these questions provide you with detailed information about the research topic and help in collecting quantifiable data that can be easily analyzed. This data can be generalized to the entire population and help make data-driven and sound decisions.

Respondents find it easier to answer quantitative survey questions than qualitative questions. At the same time, researchers can also analyze them quickly using various statistical models.

However, when it comes to writing the quantitative research questions, one can get a little overwhelmed as the entire study depends on the types of questions used.

There is no “one good way” to prepare these questions. However, to design well-structured quantitative research questions, you can follow the 4-steps approach given below:

1. Select the Type of Quantitative Question

The first step is to determine which type of quantitative question you want to add to your study. There are three types of quantitative questions:

• Descriptive
• Comparative 
• Relationship-based

This will help you choose the correct words and phrases while constructing the question. At the same time, it will also assist readers in understanding the question correctly.

2. Identify the Type of Variable

The second step involves identifying the type of variable you are trying to measure, manipulate, or control. Basically, there are two types of variables:

• Independent variable (a variable that is being manipulated)
• Dependent variable (outcome variable)

If you plan to use descriptive research questions, you have to deal with a number of dependent variables. However, where you plan to create comparative or relationship research questions, you will deal with both dependent and independent variables.

3. Select the Suitable Structure

The next step is determining the structure of the research question. It involves:

• Identifying the components of the question. It involves the type of dependent or independent variable and a group of interest (the group from which the researcher tries to conclude the population).
• The number of different components used. Like, as to how many variables and groups are being examined.
• Order in which these are presented. For example, the independent variable before the dependent variable or vice versa.

4. Draft the Complete Research Question

The last step involves identifying the problem or issue that you are trying to address in the form of complete quantitative survey questions . Also, make sure to build an exhaustive list of response options to make sure your respondents select the correct response. If you miss adding important answer options, then the ones chosen by respondents may not be entirely true.

Want to create a quantitative research survey hassle-free? Explore our library of 1,000,000+ readymade questions.

Types of Quantitative Research Questions With Examples

Quantitative research questions are generally used to answer the “who” and “what” of the research topic. For quantitative research to be effective, it is crucial that the respondents are able to answer your questions concisely and precisely. With that in mind, let’s look in greater detail at the three types of formats you can use when preparing quantitative market research questions.

1. Descriptive 

Descriptive research questions are used to collect participants’ opinions about the variable that you want to quantify. It is the most effortless way to measure the particular variable (single or multiple variables) you are interested in on a large scale. Usually, descriptive research questions begin with “ how much,” “how often,” “what percentage,” “what proportion,” etc.

Examples of descriptive research questions include:

2. Comparative

Comparative research questions help you identify the difference between two or more groups based on one or more variables. In general, a comparative research question is used to quantify one variable; however, you can use two or more variables depending on your market research objectives.

Comparative research questions examples include:

3. Relationship-based

Relationship research questions are used to identify trends, causal relationships, or associations between two or more variables. It is not vital to distinguish between causal relationships, trends, or associations while using these types of questions. These questions begin with “What is the relationship” between independent and dependent variables, amongst or between two or more groups.

Relationship-based quantitative questions examples include:

Ready to Write Your Quantitative Research Questions?

So, there you have it. It was all about quantitative research question types and their examples. By now, you must have figured out a way to write quantitative research questions for your survey to collect actionable customer feedback.

Now, the only thing you need is a good survey maker tool , like ProProfs Survey Maker , that will glide your process of designing and conducting your surveys . You also get access to various survey question types, both qualitative and quantitative, that you can add to any kind of survey along with professionally-designed survey templates .

About the author

Emma David is a seasoned market research professional with 8+ years of experience. Having kick-started her journey in research, she has developed rich expertise in employee engagement, survey creation and administration, and data management. Emma believes in the power of data to shape business performance positively. She continues to help brands and businesses make strategic decisions and improve their market standing through her understanding of research methodologies.

Related Posts

150+ Poll Questions to Engage Your Target Audience

Close Ended Questions: A Complete Guide With Types & Examples

Guide to Create an Effective Employee Surveys [Questions + Templates]

16 Advantages & Disadvantages of Questionnaires

Course Evaluation Survey: Questions & Tips to Create

How Many Questions Should Be Asked in a Survey?

Public Safety: Qualitative and Quantitative Studies Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Qualitative Research for Public Safety

Quantitative research for public safety.

The qualitative exploration of public safety was implemented by Choong et al. (2018) for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the US Department of Commerce on the topic of first responders. The report included the analysis of interviews with approximately two hundred responders across the country, who represent a body of trained professionals specializing in arriving at a scene of an emergency and assisting in addressing the situation. The work of first responders is an essential aspect of public safety because they are the ones to be deployed immediately in the case of accidents, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters.

Choong et al. (2018) studied the effectiveness of the new Usability and User Interface project as applied to increase efficiency and effectiveness of first responders’ work as well as their needs and requirements. The engagement of professionals that deal with emergencies on a regular basis is detrimental for qualitative studies of this nature because their feedback and perspectives offer a detailed look at the effectiveness of an implemented program. Also, the findings of interviews represent a basis for further studies of quantitative nature to expand on the issues and problems identified in the first stage of the research.

As applied to public safety, the studied project showed that there is no unified approach to increasing efficiency because the work of the first respondents is highly varied. It is also essential to minimize the use of technologies for ‘technology’s sake,’ which means that the implemented projects must fit the needs of professionals and not make it more complicated. Reliability and connectivity were shown to be imperative components of successful first responder programs because professionals greatly rely on cellular, radio, and wireless networks when ensuring public safety.

A quantitative approach to public safety was offered by Bachner (2013) for the IBM Center for the Business of Government as related to predictive policing, which implies crime prevention through the use of data and analytics. Predictive policing is a critical aspect of the modern law enforcement because it contributes to the enhanced methods of crime prevention. With the full availability of technologies, broad data samples, and statistics, crime mapping can be effective in improving resource allocation efficiency and allowing police officers to respond to crime risks immediately.

Predictive policing is implemented by combining three essential analysis techniques: analysis of space, analysis of time and space, and the analysis of social networks. All data involved in the analysis is of quantitative nature and is used for making predicting the likelihood of crime occurrence. For example, the Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) was the first to integrate the program into its daily operations starting from 2011. A computer algorithm was created drawing from the database of previous crime incidents to assign probabilities of crime occurrence in specific areas.

Predictive policing using quantitative data is a promising area of practice because it offers law enforcement agencies to respond to crime risks with the highest probabilities. When ensuring public safety, the use of prior data on crimes can provide professionals with an opportunity to be prepared for arising risks and deploy more police officers to patrol at locations where the likelihood of crime occurrence is higher than in other areas. However, further research on this topic is needed as both policing methods and technology used for forecasting are always changing.

Bachner, J. (2014). Predicting policing: Preventing crime with data and analytics. The Business of Government, 2014 , 86-90.

Choong, Y-Y., Dawkins, S., Furman, S., Greene, K., Prettyman, S., & Theofanos, M. (2018). Voices of first responders – identifying public safety communication problems. Web.

• "Meaning in Method" by William A. Firestone
• Research Methodology and Studies in Tourism Business
• First Responders to Terrorist Attack
• Community Policing and Traditional Policing
• Responsibilities of Responders in a Crisis Situation
• Mixed-Method Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Validity
• How to Do a Research?
• Human Factors Accident Classification System
• Research Design: Evidence Based Discussion
• What Is Science and Science Teaching Philosophy?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, June 3). Public Safety: Qualitative and Quantitative Studies. https://ivypanda.com/essays/public-safety-qualitative-and-quantitative-studies/

"Public Safety: Qualitative and Quantitative Studies." IvyPanda , 3 June 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/public-safety-qualitative-and-quantitative-studies/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Public Safety: Qualitative and Quantitative Studies'. 3 June.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Public Safety: Qualitative and Quantitative Studies." June 3, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/public-safety-qualitative-and-quantitative-studies/.

1. IvyPanda . "Public Safety: Qualitative and Quantitative Studies." June 3, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/public-safety-qualitative-and-quantitative-studies/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Public Safety: Qualitative and Quantitative Studies." June 3, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/public-safety-qualitative-and-quantitative-studies/.

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Causes of police behavior - the current state of quantitative research, additional details.

Washington , DC 20203 , United States

1400 Washington Avenue , Albany , NY 12222 , United States

S.I. Newhouse Ctr at Rutgers , 15 Washington St., Fourth Floor , Newark , NJ 07102 , United States

300 North Zeeb Road , P.O. Box 1346 , Ann Arbor , MI 48106-1346 , United States

University City Science Ctr , 3501 Market Street , Philadelphia , PA 19104 , United States

No download available

Availability.

• Find in a Library
• Order PDF/Photocopy

Related Topics

• Cookies & Privacy
• GETTING STARTED
• Introduction
• FUNDAMENTALS
• Acknowledgements
• Research questions & hypotheses
• Concepts, constructs & variables
• Research limitations
• Getting started
• Sampling Strategy
• Research Quality
• Research Ethics
• Data Analysis

How to structure quantitative research questions

There is no "one best way" to structure a quantitative research question. However, to create a well-structured quantitative research question, we recommend an approach that is based on four steps : (1) Choosing the type of quantitative research question you are trying to create (i.e., descriptive, comparative or relationship-based); (2) Identifying the different types of variables you are trying to measure, manipulate and/or control, as well as any groups you may be interested in; (3) Selecting the appropriate structure for the chosen type of quantitative research question, based on the variables and/or groups involved; and (4) Writing out the problem or issues you are trying to address in the form of a complete research question. In this article, we discuss each of these four steps , as well as providing examples for the three types of quantitative research question you may want to create: descriptive , comparative and relationship-based research questions .

• STEP ONE: Choose the type of quantitative research question (i.e., descriptive, comparative or relationship) you are trying to create
• STEP TWO: Identify the different types of variable you are trying to measure, manipulate and/or control, as well as any groups you may be interested in
• STEP THREE: Select the appropriate structure for the chosen type of quantitative research question, based on the variables and/or groups involved
• STEP FOUR: Write out the problem or issues you are trying to address in the form of a complete research question

STEP ONE Choose the type of quantitative research question (i.e., descriptive, comparative or relationship) you are trying to create

The type of quantitative research question that you use in your dissertation (i.e., descriptive , comparative and/or relationship-based ) needs to be reflected in the way that you write out the research question; that is, the word choice and phrasing that you use when constructing a research question tells the reader whether it is a descriptive, comparative or relationship-based research question. Therefore, in order to know how to structure your quantitative research question, you need to start by selecting the type of quantitative research question you are trying to create: descriptive, comparative and/or relationship-based.

STEP TWO Identify the different types of variable you are trying to measure, manipulate and/or control, as well as any groups you may be interested in

Whether you are trying to create a descriptive, comparative or relationship-based research question, you will need to identify the different types of variable that you are trying to measure , manipulate and/or control . If you are unfamiliar with the different types of variable that may be part of your study, the article, Types of variable , should get you up to speed. It explains the two main types of variables: categorical variables (i.e., nominal , dichotomous and ordinal variables) and continuous variables (i.e., interval and ratio variables). It also explains the difference between independent and dependent variables , which you need to understand to create quantitative research questions.

To provide a brief explanation; a variable is not only something that you measure , but also something that you can manipulate and control for. In most undergraduate and master's level dissertations, you are only likely to measure and manipulate variables. You are unlikely to carry out research that requires you to control for variables, although some supervisors will expect this additional level of complexity. If you plan to only create descriptive research questions , you may simply have a number of dependent variables that you need to measure. However, where you plan to create comparative and/or relationship-based research questions , you will deal with both dependent and independent variables . An independent variable (sometimes called an experimental or predictor variable ) is a variable that is being manipulated in an experiment in order to observe the effect this has on a dependent variable (sometimes called an outcome variable ). For example, if we were interested in investigating the relationship between gender and attitudes towards music piracy amongst adolescents , the independent variable would be gender and the dependent variable attitudes towards music piracy . This example also highlights the need to identify the group(s) you are interested in. In this example, the group of interest are adolescents .

Once you identifying the different types of variable you are trying to measure, manipulate and/or control, as well as any groups you may be interested in, it is possible to start thinking about the way that the three types of quantitative research question can be structured . This is discussed next.

STEP THREE Select the appropriate structure for the chosen type of quantitative research question, based on the variables and/or groups involved

The structure of the three types of quantitative research question differs, reflecting the goals of the question, the types of variables, and the number of variables and groups involved. By structure , we mean the components of a research question (i.e., the types of variables, groups of interest), the number of these different components (i.e., how many variables and groups are being investigated), and the order that these should be presented (e.g., independent variables before dependent variables). The appropriate structure for each of these quantitative research questions is set out below:

Structure of descriptive research questions

• Structure of comparative research questions
• Structure of relationship-based research questions

There are six steps required to construct a descriptive research question: (1) choose your starting phrase; (2) identify and name the dependent variable; (3) identify the group(s) you are interested in; (4) decide whether dependent variable or group(s) should be included first, last or in two parts; (5) include any words that provide greater context to your question; and (6) write out the descriptive research question. Each of these steps is discussed in turn:

Choose your starting phrase

Identify and name the dependent variable

Identify the group(s) you are interested in

Decide whether the dependent variable or group(s) should be included first, last or in two parts

Include any words that provide greater context to your question

Write out the descriptive research question

FIRST Choose your starting phrase

You can start descriptive research questions with any of the following phrases:

How many? How often? How frequently? How much? What percentage? What proportion? To what extent? What is? What are?

Some of these starting phrases are highlighted in blue text in the examples below:

How many calories do American men and women consume per day?

How often do British university students use Facebook each week?

What are the most important factors that influence the career choices of Australian university students?

What proportion of British male and female university students use the top 5 social networks?

What percentage of American men and women exceed their daily calorific allowance?

SECOND Identify and name the dependent variable

All descriptive research questions have a dependent variable. You need to identify what this is. However, how the dependent variable is written out in a research question and what you call it are often two different things. In the examples below, we have illustrated the name of the dependent variable and highlighted how it would be written out in the blue text .

The first two examples highlight that while the name of the dependent variable is the same, namely daily calorific intake , the way that this dependent variable is written out differs in each case.

THIRD Identify the group(s) you are interested in

All descriptive research questions have at least one group , but can have multiple groups . You need to identify this group(s). In the examples below, we have identified the group(s) in the green text .

What are the most important factors that influence the career choices of Australian university students ?

The examples illustrate the difference between the use of a single group (e.g., British university students ) and multiple groups (e.g., American men and women ).

FOURTH Decide whether the dependent variable or group(s) should be included first, last or in two parts

Sometimes it makes more sense for the dependent variable to appear before the group(s) you are interested in, but sometimes it is the opposite way around. The following examples illustrate this, with the group(s) in green text and the dependent variable in blue text :

Group 1st; dependent variable 2nd:

How often do British university students use Facebook each week ?

Dependent variable 1st; group 2nd:

Sometimes, the dependent variable needs to be broken into two parts around the group(s) you are interested in so that the research question flows. Again, the group(s) are in green text and the dependent variable is in blue text :

How many calories do American men and women consume per day ?

Of course, you could choose to restructure the question above so that you do not have to split the dependent variable into two parts. For example:

How many calories are consumed per day by American men and women ?

When deciding whether the dependent variable or group(s) should be included first or last, and whether the dependent variable should be broken into two parts, the main thing you need to think about is flow : Does the question flow? Is it easy to read?

FIFTH Include any words that provide greater context to your question

Sometimes the name of the dependent variable provides all the explanation we need to know what we are trying to measure. Take the following examples:

In the first example, the dependent variable is daily calorific intake (i.e., calories consumed per day). Clearly, this descriptive research question is asking us to measure the number of calories American men and women consume per day. In the second example, the dependent variable is Facebook usage per week. Again, the name of this dependent variable makes it easy for us to understand that we are trying to measure the often (i.e., how frequently; e.g., 16 times per week) British university students use Facebook.

However, sometimes a descriptive research question is not simply interested in measuring the dependent variable in its entirety, but a particular component of the dependent variable. Take the following examples in red text :

In the first example, the research question is not simply interested in the daily calorific intake of American men and women, but what percentage of these American men and women exceeded their daily calorific allowance. So the dependent variable is still daily calorific intake, but the research question aims to understand a particular component of that dependent variable (i.e., the percentage of American men and women exceeding the recommend daily calorific allowance). In the second example, the research question is not only interested in what the factors influencing career choices are, but which of these factors are the most important.

Therefore, when you think about constructing your descriptive research question, make sure you have included any words that provide greater context to your question.

SIXTH Write out the descriptive research question

Once you have these details ? (1) the starting phrase, (2) the name of the dependent variable, (3) the name of the group(s) you are interested in, and (4) any potential joining words ? you can write out the descriptive research question in full. The example descriptive research questions discussed above are written out in full below:

In the section that follows, the structure of comparative research questions is discussed.

Snapsolve any problem by taking a picture. Try it in the Numerade app?

Public Safety & Law Enforcement Leadership: Research Methods

• Getting Started
• Using the Library
• Background Information
• Finding Books
• Peer Review
• Statistical Resources
• Citing Sources--APA Style
• Research Methods

Sage Research Methods

Books on Evaluation and Action Research

Finding Action Research in Databases

Provides comprehensive coverage of research on criminal justice and criminology, including psychological, sociological, and legal aspects.

The NCJR Contains summaries of the more than 200,000 criminal justice, juvenile justice, and substance abuse resources and is sponsored by several departments within the Office of Justice Programs.

Includes resources in the fields of sociology and related subject areas.

Provides abstracts and full text of thousands of journals from the 1800s to the present in psychology and related disciplines, including education, linguistics, neurosciences, pharmacology, and social work.

Provides full-text research on a wide range of education topics. Includes peer-reviewed journals, books, research syntheses, conference papers, technical reports, and much more.

Covers a wide range of education topics from early childhood to higher ed as well as educational specialties like adult education, multilingual education, and more. Includes peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers, books, and more.

Contains peer-reviewed journals on a wide range of business topics, and is particularly strong in international management, human resources, information technology, and operations.

Videos on Research

• Research Ethics and Working with Children and Young People From the transcript: "And I think what's important, again, like young people and children just want to know what that research is about. And I think they need to understand what their involvement might mean, what it might mean for their friends and family, perhaps, if it's part of that kind of wider project."
• How do I research social change? "...in terms of actually researching it we don't necessarily have great methods for it. In fact the discipline of history is probably more well developed for that. "
• Practitioner Inquiry So practitioner inquiry is not so much a method, although it's often associated with action research because action research is a common methodological approach within practitioner inquiry. Practitioner inquiry is about the practitioner, whether they're a teacher, a lawyer, a doctor, or a social worker thinking about their work in a very curious but also very systematic way.

Developing your Question and Writing Up

Guess what? We have a new database that has tons of resources to help you develop and think through your research. Anything you're interested in doing, it will help you figure out how and why. Videos, books, journal articles, and chapters to inspire you!

• From an Idea to a Research Question How to develop your thought into a question that is researchable, especially for qualitative research.
• Coming Up with a Research Question "...excellent research questions are not easy to write. This is why we have devoted an entire chapter to exploring how to come up with a good research question."
• Literature Review: Encyclopedia of Research Design Describes different types of literature reviews, suggests which parts of the studies you need to focus on, and discusses how to present what you find.
• Literature Review: Research Methods in Social Sciences Describes a particular type of literature review: Systematic Review.

• Writing reflexively by Nick Bingham ": write early and write often. What I want to do in what follows is add to this simple but invaluable advice the suggestion that it might be equally as valuable to consider the act of writing itself early and often too."

Subject Guide

• << Previous: Citing Sources--APA Style
• Last Updated: May 10, 2024 12:10 PM
• URL: https://libguides.stthomas.edu/public_safety

© 2023 University of St. Thomas, Minnesota

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Journal Menu

• Sustainability Home
• Aims & Scope
• Editorial Board
• Reviewer Board
• Topical Advisory Panel
• Instructions for Authors
• Special Issues
• Sections & Collections
• Article Processing Charge
• Indexing & Archiving
• Editor’s Choice Articles
• Most Cited & Viewed
• Journal Statistics
• Journal History
• Journal Awards
• Society Collaborations
• Conferences
• Editorial Office

Journal Browser

• arrow_forward_ios Forthcoming issue arrow_forward_ios Current issue
• Vol. 16 (2024)
• Vol. 15 (2023)
• Vol. 14 (2022)
• Vol. 13 (2021)
• Vol. 12 (2020)
• Vol. 11 (2019)
• Vol. 10 (2018)
• Vol. 9 (2017)
• Vol. 8 (2016)
• Vol. 7 (2015)
• Vol. 6 (2014)
• Vol. 5 (2013)
• Vol. 4 (2012)
• Vol. 3 (2011)
• Vol. 2 (2010)
• Vol. 1 (2009)

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

SafeMetrics-Quantitative Science Studies for Safety Science

• Print Special Issue Flyer

Special Issue Editors

Special issue information, benefits of publishing in a special issue.

• Published Papers

A special issue of Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050). This special issue belongs to the section " Sustainable Engineering and Science ".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 March 2023) | Viewed by 18592

Share This Special Issue

Dear Colleagues,

Quantitative science studies using bibliometric, scientometric, or informetric analysis are applied to characterize the structure and research trends of specific scientific fields by applying various quantitative methodologies. A comprehensive spectrum of analysis methods can uncover patterns, trends, and key themes in bibliographic data. When augmented with visualization techniques, often focusing on the network topology of a particular research domain, these patterns can be interpreted, insights obtained, and future research directions formulated.

This Special Issue aims to provide scholars and stakeholders with an opportunity to advance scientific insights on the evolution of safety and sustainability research and to discuss future development paths. The focus is on the application of safety science scientometric (SafeMetrics) methods to support these insights, but narrative review articles are considered as well. Original research and review papers of quantitative science studies covering various research subdomains such as safety management, safety behavior (e.g., emergency evacuation), safety psychology, safety culture, safety education, inherently safety design, human and organizational factors of safety, accident prevention, risk analysis and management, risk perception, disaster mechanisms, disaster preparedness and response, emergency response, risk and safety in the context of sustainable development, etc., are warmly welcome for submission to this Special Issue.

Papers employing state-of-the-art and innovative bibliometric, scientometric, or informetric analysis approaches and focusing on the latest developments and techniques (e.g., artificial intelligence) in safety engineering design and practice as well as experimental or theoretical research, applied to the above topics, are the main target for submissions to the Special Issue. Contributions that aim to promote a sustainable coexistence of man and nature, and support social and economic sustainable development by focusing on topics at the interface of scientific domains, are especially welcome. This Special Issue is open to any subject related to quantitative studies for safety and sustainability science, with topics including but not limited to the listed suggestions:

• Theories and methods for SafeMetrics research;
• Quantitative features and characteristics in safety, risk, disaster, crisis, or sustainability research;
• Quantitative methods to identify hot topics, intellectual structure, research fronts of safety, risk, disaster, crisis, or sustainability subdomains;
• Mapping knowledge domains of safety, risk, disaster, crisis, or sustainability-related research;
• Scientific collaboration network in safety, risk, disaster, crisis, or sustainability subdomains;
• Bibliometrics review of widely used methods, software, theories in the safety-related area;
• Knowledge organization, diffusion, communication, and integration in safety-related topics;
• Citation behavior analysis in safety science research;
• Historical roots analysis of safety-related research;
• Measuring complexity or interdisciplinary of the safety sciences;
• Research activities after the major events, accidents, or disasters (e.g., Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster);
• Developing indicators to measure scientific activity in safety, risk, disaster, crisis, and sustainability domains;
• Citation analysis to identify the scientific evolution in safety, risk, disaster, crisis, and sustainability research;
• Patents analysis in safety, risk, disaster, crisis, and sustainability research areas;
• Event Logic Graph in safety, risk, disaster, crisis, and sustainability research based on reports or online data;
• Computational social science in safety/security areas. e.g., using social media (e.g., Twitter, Weibo, and Wechat) data to analyze safety and risk (e.g., disaster response);
• Other topics related to bibliographic data-driven safety, risk, disaster, crisis, or sustainability science.

Dr. Jie Li Dr. Jie Xue Prof. Dr. Dengsheng Wu Prof. Dr. Xiaolong Zheng Guest Editors

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website . Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form . Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Sustainability is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

• SafeMetrics
• safety science
• safety management
• safety behavior
• safety psychology
• safety culture
• safety education
• inherently safe design
• human and organizational factors of safety
• risk analysis and management
• risk perception
• disaster mechanisms
• disaster preparedness and response
• accident prevention
• emergency response
• sustainability science
• sustainability assessment
• sustainable development
• sustainability indicators
• bibliometrics analysis
• scientometric analysis
• informetric analysis
• mapping knowledge domains
• quantitative science review
• Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
• Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
• Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
• External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
• e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here .

Published Papers (8 papers)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• 10 Research Question Examples to Guide Your Research Project

10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project

Published on October 30, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on October 19, 2023.

The research question is one of the most important parts of your research paper , thesis or dissertation . It’s important to spend some time assessing and refining your question before you get started.

The exact form of your question will depend on a few things, such as the length of your project, the type of research you’re conducting, the topic , and the research problem . However, all research questions should be focused, specific, and relevant to a timely social or scholarly issue.

Once you’ve read our guide on how to write a research question , you can use these examples to craft your own.

Note that the design of your research question can depend on what method you are pursuing. Here are a few options for qualitative, quantitative, and statistical research questions.

Other interesting articles

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, October 19). 10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project. Scribbr. Retrieved August 15, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-question-examples/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to choose a dissertation topic | 8 steps to follow, evaluating sources | methods & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Quantitative Methods

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 11 June 2021
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Juwel Rana 2 , 3 , 4 ,
• Patricia Luna Gutierrez 5 &
• John C. Oldroyd 6  

601 Accesses

1 Citations

Quantitative analysis ; Quantitative research methods ; Study design

Quantitative method is the collection and analysis of numerical data to answer scientific research questions. Quantitative method is used to summarize, average, find patterns, make predictions, and test causal associations as well as generalizing results to wider populations. It allows us to quantify effect sizes, determine the strength of associations, rank priorities, and weigh the strength of evidence of effectiveness.

Introduction

This entry aims to introduce the most common ways to use numbers and statistics to describe variables, establish relationships among variables, and build numerical understanding of a topic. In general, the quantitative research process uses a deductive approach (Neuman 2014 ; Leavy 2017 ), extrapolating from a particular case to the general situation (Babones 2016 ).

In practical ways, quantitative methods are an approach to studying a research topic. In research, the...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Babones S (2016) Interpretive quantitative methods for the social sciences. Sociology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038515583637

Balnaves M, Caputi P (2001) Introduction to quantitative research methods: an investigative approach. Sage, London

Book   Google Scholar  

Brenner PS (2020) Understanding survey methodology: sociological theory and applications. Springer, Boston

Google Scholar  

Creswell JW (2014) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage, London

Leavy P (2017) Research design. The Gilford Press, New York

Mertens W, Pugliese A, Recker J (2018) Quantitative data analysis, research methods: information, systems, and contexts: second edition. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102220-7.00018-2

Neuman LW (2014) Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Pearson Education Limited, Edinburgh

Treiman DJ (2009) Quantitative data analysis: doing social research to test ideas. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Public Health, School of Health and Life Sciences, North South University, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA, USA

Department of Research and Innovation, South Asia Institute for Social Transformation (SAIST), Dhaka, Bangladesh

Independent Researcher, Masatepe, Nicaragua

Patricia Luna Gutierrez

School of Behavioral and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia

John C. Oldroyd

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juwel Rana .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

Ali Farazmand

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Rana, J., Gutierrez, P.L., Oldroyd, J.C. (2021). Quantitative Methods. In: Farazmand, A. (eds) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_460-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_460-1

Received : 31 January 2021

Accepted : 14 February 2021

Published : 11 June 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-31816-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-31816-5

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Economics and Finance Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMJ Glob Health
• v.4(Suppl 1); 2019

Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods

1 School of Social Sciences, Bangor University, Wales, UK

Andrew Booth

2 School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Graham Moore

3 School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Wales, UK

Kate Flemming

4 Department of Health Sciences, The University of York, York, UK

Özge Tunçalp

5 Department of Reproductive Health and Research including UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

Elham Shakibazadeh

6 Department of Health Education and Promotion, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Associated Data

bmjgh-2018-000893supp001.pdf

bmjgh-2018-000893supp002.pdf

bmjgh-2018-000893supp003.pdf

bmjgh-2018-000893supp005.pdf

bmjgh-2018-000893supp004.pdf

Guideline developers are increasingly dealing with more difficult decisions concerning whether to recommend complex interventions in complex and highly variable health systems. There is greater recognition that both quantitative and qualitative evidence can be combined in a mixed-method synthesis and that this can be helpful in understanding how complexity impacts on interventions in specific contexts. This paper aims to clarify the different purposes, review designs, questions, synthesis methods and opportunities to combine quantitative and qualitative evidence to explore the complexity of complex interventions and health systems. Three case studies of guidelines developed by WHO, which incorporated quantitative and qualitative evidence, are used to illustrate possible uses of mixed-method reviews and evidence. Additional examples of methods that can be used or may have potential for use in a guideline process are outlined. Consideration is given to the opportunities for potential integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence at different stages of the review and guideline process. Encouragement is given to guideline commissioners and developers and review authors to consider including quantitative and qualitative evidence. Recommendations are made concerning the future development of methods to better address questions in systematic reviews and guidelines that adopt a complexity perspective.

Summary box

• When combined in a mixed-method synthesis, quantitative and qualitative evidence can potentially contribute to understanding how complex interventions work and for whom, and how the complex health systems into which they are implemented respond and adapt.
• The different purposes and designs for combining quantitative and qualitative evidence in a mixed-method synthesis for a guideline process are described.
• Questions relevant to gaining an understanding of the complexity of complex interventions and the wider health systems within which they are implemented that can be addressed by mixed-method syntheses are presented.
• The practical methodological guidance in this paper is intended to help guideline producers and review authors commission and conduct mixed-method syntheses where appropriate.
• If more mixed-method syntheses are conducted, guideline developers will have greater opportunities to access this evidence to inform decision-making.

Introduction

Recognition has grown that while quantitative methods remain vital, they are usually insufficient to address complex health systems related research questions. 1 Quantitative methods rely on an ability to anticipate what must be measured in advance. Introducing change into a complex health system gives rise to emergent reactions, which cannot be fully predicted in advance. Emergent reactions can often only be understood through combining quantitative methods with a more flexible qualitative lens. 2 Adopting a more pluralist position enables a diverse range of research options to the researcher depending on the research question being investigated. 3–5 As a consequence, where a research study sits within the multitude of methods available is driven by the question being asked, rather than any particular methodological or philosophical stance. 6

Publication of guidance on designing complex intervention process evaluations and other works advocating mixed-methods approaches to intervention research have stimulated better quality evidence for synthesis. 1 7–13 Methods for synthesising qualitative 14 and mixed-method evidence have been developed or are in development. Mixed-method research and review definitions are outlined in box 1 .

Defining mixed-method research and reviews

Pluye and Hong 52 define mixed-methods research as “a research approach in which a researcher integrates (a) qualitative and quantitative research questions, (b) qualitative research methods* and quantitative research designs, (c) techniques for collecting and analyzing qualitative and quantitative evidence, and (d) qualitative findings and quantitative results”.A mixed-method synthesis can integrate quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method evidence or data from primary studies.† Mixed-method primary studies are usually disaggregated into quantitative and qualitative evidence and data for the purposes of synthesis. Thomas and Harden further define three ways in which reviews are mixed. 53

• The types of studies included and hence the type of findings to be synthesised (ie, qualitative/textual and quantitative/numerical).
• The types of synthesis method used (eg, statistical meta-analysis and qualitative synthesis).
• The mode of analysis: theory testing AND theory building.

*A qualitative study is one that uses qualitative methods of data collection and analysis to produce a narrative understanding of the phenomena of interest. Qualitative methods of data collection may include, for example, interviews, focus groups, observations and analysis of documents.

†The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods group coined the term ‘qualitative evidence synthesis’ to mean that the synthesis could also include qualitative data. For example, qualitative data from case studies, grey literature reports and open-ended questions from surveys. ‘Evidence’ and ‘data’ are used interchangeably in this paper.

This paper is one of a series that aims to explore the implications of complexity for systematic reviews and guideline development, commissioned by WHO. This paper is concerned with the methodological implications of including quantitative and qualitative evidence in mixed-method systematic reviews and guideline development for complex interventions. The guidance was developed through a process of bringing together experts in the field, literature searching and consensus building with end users (guideline developers, clinicians and reviewers). We clarify the different purposes, review designs, questions and synthesis methods that may be applicable to combine quantitative and qualitative evidence to explore the complexity of complex interventions and health systems. Three case studies of WHO guidelines that incorporated quantitative and qualitative evidence are used to illustrate possible uses of mixed-method reviews and mechanisms of integration ( table 1 , online supplementary files 1–3 ). Additional examples of methods that can be used or may have potential for use in a guideline process are outlined. Opportunities for potential integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence at different stages of the review and guideline process are presented. Specific considerations when using an evidence to decision framework such as the Developing and Evaluating Communication strategies to support Informed Decisions and practice based on Evidence (DECIDE) framework 15 or the new WHO-INTEGRATE evidence to decision framework 16 at the review design and evidence to decision stage are outlined. See online supplementary file 4 for an example of a health systems DECIDE framework and Rehfuess et al 16 for the new WHO-INTEGRATE framework. Encouragement is given to guideline commissioners and developers and review authors to consider including quantitative and qualitative evidence in guidelines of complex interventions that take a complexity perspective and health systems focus.

Designs and methods and their use or applicability in guidelines and systematic reviews taking a complexity perspective

Supplementary data

Taking a complexity perspective.

The first paper in this series 17 outlines aspects of complexity associated with complex interventions and health systems that can potentially be explored by different types of evidence, including synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Petticrew et al 17 distinguish between a complex interventions perspective and a complex systems perspective. A complex interventions perspective defines interventions as having “implicit conceptual boundaries, representing a flexible, but common set of practices, often linked by an explicit or implicit theory about how they work”. A complex systems perspective differs in that “ complexity arises from the relationships and interactions between a system’s agents (eg, people, or groups that interact with each other and their environment), and its context. A system perspective conceives the intervention as being part of the system, and emphasises changes and interconnections within the system itself”. Aspects of complexity associated with implementation of complex interventions in health systems that could potentially be addressed with a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence are summarised in table 2 . Another paper in the series outlines criteria used in a new evidence to decision framework for making decisions about complex interventions implemented in complex systems, against which the need for quantitative and qualitative evidence can be mapped. 16 A further paper 18 that explores how context is dealt with in guidelines and reviews taking a complexity perspective also recommends using both quantitative and qualitative evidence to better understand context as a source of complexity. Mixed-method syntheses of quantitative and qualitative evidence can also help with understanding of whether there has been theory failure and or implementation failure. The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group provide additional guidance on exploring implementation and theory failure that can be adapted to address aspects of complexity of complex interventions when implemented in health systems. 19

Health-system complexity-related questions that a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence could address (derived from Petticrew et al 17 )

It may not be apparent which aspects of complexity or which elements of the complex intervention or health system can be explored in a guideline process, or whether combining qualitative and quantitative evidence in a mixed-method synthesis will be useful, until the available evidence is scoped and mapped. 17 20 A more extensive lead in phase is typically required to scope the available evidence, engage with stakeholders and to refine the review parameters and questions that can then be mapped against potential review designs and methods of synthesis. 20 At the scoping stage, it is also common to decide on a theoretical perspective 21 or undertake further work to refine a theoretical perspective. 22 This is also the stage to begin articulating the programme theory of the complex intervention that may be further developed to refine an understanding of complexity and show how the intervention is implemented in and impacts on the wider health system. 17 23 24 In practice, this process can be lengthy, iterative and fluid with multiple revisions to the review scope, often developing and adapting a logic model 17 as the available evidence becomes known and the potential to incorporate different types of review designs and syntheses of quantitative and qualitative evidence becomes better understood. 25 Further questions, propositions or hypotheses may emerge as the reviews progress and therefore the protocols generally need to be developed iteratively over time rather than a priori.

Following a scoping exercise and definition of key questions, the next step in the guideline development process is to identify existing or commission new systematic reviews to locate and summarise the best available evidence in relation to each question. For example, case study 2, ‘Optimising health worker roles for maternal and newborn health through task shifting’, included quantitative reviews that did and did not take an additional complexity perspective, and qualitative evidence syntheses that were able to explain how specific elements of complexity impacted on intervention outcomes within the wider health system. Further understanding of health system complexity was facilitated through the conduct of additional country-level case studies that contributed to an overall understanding of what worked and what happened when lay health worker interventions were implemented. See table 1 online supplementary file 2 .

There are a few existing examples, which we draw on in this paper, but integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence in a mixed-method synthesis is relatively uncommon in a guideline process. Box 2 includes a set of key questions that guideline developers and review authors contemplating combining quantitative and qualitative evidence in mixed-methods design might ask. Subsequent sections provide more information and signposting to further reading to help address these key questions.

Key questions that guideline developers and review authors contemplating combining quantitative and qualitative evidence in a mixed-methods design might ask

Compound questions requiring both quantitative and qualitative evidence?

Questions requiring mixed-methods studies?

Separate quantitative and qualitative questions?

Separate quantitative and qualitative research studies?

Related quantitative and qualitative research studies?

Mixed-methods studies?

Quantitative unpublished data and/or qualitative unpublished data, eg, narrative survey data?

Throughout the review?

Following separate reviews?

At the question point?

At the synthesis point?

At the evidence to recommendations stage?

Or a combination?

Narrative synthesis or summary?

Quantitising approach, eg, frequency analysis?

Qualitising approach, eg, thematic synthesis?

Tabulation?

Logic model?

Conceptual model/framework?

Graphical approach?

• WHICH: Which mixed-method designs, methodologies and methods best fit into a guideline process to inform recommendations?

Complexity-related questions that a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence can potentially address

Petticrew et al 17 define the different aspects of complexity and examples of complexity-related questions that can potentially be explored in guidelines and systematic reviews taking a complexity perspective. Relevant aspects of complexity outlined by Petticrew et al 17 are summarised in table 2 below, together with the corresponding questions that could be addressed in a synthesis combining qualitative and quantitative evidence. Importantly, the aspects of complexity and their associated concepts of interest have however yet to be translated fully in primary health research or systematic reviews. There are few known examples where selected complexity concepts have been used to analyse or reanalyse a primary intervention study. Most notable is Chandler et al 26 who specifically set out to identify and translate a set of relevant complexity theory concepts for application in health systems research. Chandler then reanalysed a trial process evaluation using selected complexity theory concepts to better understand the complex causal pathway in the health system that explains some aspects of complexity in table 2 .

Rehfeuss et al 16 also recommends upfront consideration of the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence to decision criteria when planning a guideline and formulating questions. The criteria reflect WHO norms and values and take account of a complexity perspective. The framework can be used by guideline development groups as a menu to decide which criteria to prioritise, and which study types and synthesis methods can be used to collect evidence for each criterion. Many of the criteria and their related questions can be addressed using a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence: the balance of benefits and harms, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, societal implications and feasibility (see table 3 ). Similar aspects in the DECIDE framework 15 could also be addressed using synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence.

Integrate evidence to decision framework criteria, example questions and types of studies to potentially address these questions (derived from Rehfeuss et al 16 )

GIS, Geographical Information System; RCT, randomised controlled trial.

Questions as anchors or compasses

Questions can serve as an ‘anchor’ by articulating the specific aspects of complexity to be explored (eg, Is successful implementation of the intervention context dependent?). 27 Anchor questions such as “How does intervention x impact on socioeconomic inequalities in health behaviour/outcome x” are the kind of health system question that requires a synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative evidence and hence a mixed-method synthesis. Quantitative evidence can quantify the difference in effect, but does not answer the question of how . The ‘how’ question can be partly answered with quantitative and qualitative evidence. For example, quantitative evidence may reveal where socioeconomic status and inequality emerges in the health system (an emergent property) by exploring questions such as “ Does patterning emerge during uptake because fewer people from certain groups come into contact with an intervention in the first place? ” or “ are people from certain backgrounds more likely to drop out, or to maintain effects beyond an intervention differently? ” Qualitative evidence may help understand the reasons behind all of these mechanisms. Alternatively, questions can act as ‘compasses’ where a question sets out a starting point from which to explore further and to potentially ask further questions or develop propositions or hypotheses to explore through a complexity perspective (eg, What factors enhance or hinder implementation?). 27 Other papers in this series provide further guidance on developing questions for qualitative evidence syntheses and guidance on question formulation. 14 28

For anchor and compass questions, additional application of a theory (eg, complexity theory) can help focus evidence synthesis and presentation to explore and explain complexity issues. 17 21 Development of a review specific logic model(s) can help to further refine an initial understanding of any complexity-related issues of interest associated with a specific intervention, and if appropriate the health system or section of the health system within which to contextualise the review question and analyse data. 17 23–25 Specific tools are available to help clarify context and complex interventions. 17 18

If a complexity perspective, and certain criteria within evidence to decision frameworks, is deemed relevant and desirable by guideline developers, it is only possible to pursue a complexity perspective if the evidence is available. Careful scoping using knowledge maps or scoping reviews will help inform development of questions that are answerable with available evidence. 20 If evidence of effect is not available, then a different approach to develop questions leading to a more general narrative understanding of what happened when complex interventions were implemented in a health system will be required (such as in case study 3—risk communication guideline). This should not mean that the original questions developed for which no evidence was found when scoping the literature were not important. An important function of creating a knowledge map is also to identify gaps to inform a future research agenda.

Table 2 and online supplementary files 1–3 outline examples of questions in the three case studies, which were all ‘COMPASS’ questions for the qualitative evidence syntheses.

Types of integration and synthesis designs in mixed-method reviews

The shift towards integration of qualitative and quantitative evidence in primary research has, in recent years, begun to be mirrored within research synthesis. 29–31 The natural extension to undertaking quantitative or qualitative reviews has been the development of methods for integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence within reviews, and within the guideline process using evidence to decision-frameworks. Advocating the integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence assumes a complementarity between research methodologies, and a need for both types of evidence to inform policy and practice. Below, we briefly outline the current designs for integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence within a mixed-method review or synthesis.

One of the early approaches to integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence detailed by Sandelowski et al 32 advocated three basic review designs: segregated, integrated and contingent designs, which have been further developed by Heyvaert et al 33 ( box 3 ).

Segregated, integrated and contingent designs 32 33

Segregated design.

Conventional separate distinction between quantitative and qualitative approaches based on the assumption they are different entities and should be treated separately; can be distinguished from each other; their findings warrant separate analyses and syntheses. Ultimately, the separate synthesis results can themselves be synthesised.

Integrated design

The methodological differences between qualitative and quantitative studies are minimised as both are viewed as producing findings that can be readily synthesised into one another because they address the same research purposed and questions. Transformation involves either turning qualitative data into quantitative (quantitising) or quantitative findings are turned into qualitative (qualitising) to facilitate their integration.

Contingent design

Takes a cyclical approach to synthesis, with the findings from one synthesis informing the focus of the next synthesis, until all the research objectives have been addressed. Studies are not necessarily grouped and categorised as qualitative or quantitative.

A recent review of more than 400 systematic reviews 34 combining quantitative and qualitative evidence identified two main synthesis designs—convergent and sequential. In a convergent design, qualitative and quantitative evidence is collated and analysed in a parallel or complementary manner, whereas in a sequential synthesis, the collation and analysis of quantitative and qualitative evidence takes place in a sequence with one synthesis informing the other ( box 4 ). 6 These designs can be seen to build on the work of Sandelowski et al , 32 35 particularly in relation to the transformation of data from qualitative to quantitative (and vice versa) and the sequential synthesis design, with a cyclical approach to reviewing that evokes Sandelowski’s contingent design.

Convergent and sequential synthesis designs 34

Convergent synthesis design.

Qualitative and quantitative research is collected and analysed at the same time in a parallel or complementary manner. Integration can occur at three points:

a. Data-based convergent synthesis design

All included studies are analysed using the same methods and results presented together. As only one synthesis method is used, data transformation occurs (qualitised or quantised). Usually addressed one review question.

b. Results-based convergent synthesis design

Qualitative and quantitative data are analysed and presented separately but integrated using a further synthesis method; eg, narratively, tables, matrices or reanalysing evidence. The results of both syntheses are combined in a third synthesis. Usually addresses an overall review question with subquestions.

c. Parallel-results convergent synthesis design

Qualitative and quantitative data are analysed and presented separately with integration occurring in the interpretation of results in the discussion section. Usually addresses two or more complimentary review questions.

Sequential synthesis design

A two-phase approach, data collection and analysis of one type of evidence (eg, qualitative), occurs after and is informed by the collection and analysis of the other type (eg, quantitative). Usually addresses an overall question with subquestions with both syntheses complementing each other.

The three case studies ( table 1 , online supplementary files 1–3 ) illustrate the diverse combination of review designs and synthesis methods that were considered the most appropriate for specific guidelines.

Methods for conducting mixed-method reviews in the context of guidelines for complex interventions

In this section, we draw on examples where specific review designs and methods have been or can be used to explore selected aspects of complexity in guidelines or systematic reviews. We also identify other review methods that could potentially be used to explore aspects of complexity. Of particular note, we could not find any specific examples of systematic methods to synthesise highly diverse research designs as advocated by Petticrew et al 17 and summarised in tables 2 and 3 . For example, we could not find examples of methods to synthesise qualitative studies, case studies, quantitative longitudinal data, possibly historical data, effectiveness studies providing evidence of differential effects across different contexts, and system modelling studies (eg, agent-based modelling) to explore system adaptivity.

There are different ways that quantitative and qualitative evidence can be integrated into a review and then into a guideline development process. In practice, some methods enable integration of different types of evidence in a single synthesis, while in other methods, the single systematic review may include a series of stand-alone reviews or syntheses that are then combined in a cross-study synthesis. Table 1 provides an overview of the characteristics of different review designs and methods and guidance on their applicability for a guideline process. Designs and methods that have already been used in WHO guideline development are described in part A of the table. Part B outlines a design and method that can be used in a guideline process, and part C covers those that have the potential to integrate quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method evidence in a single review design (such as meta-narrative reviews and Bayesian syntheses), but their application in a guideline context has yet to be demonstrated.

Points of integration when integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence in guideline development

Depending on the review design (see boxes 3 and 4 ), integration can potentially take place at a review team and design level, and more commonly at several key points of the review or guideline process. The following sections outline potential points of integration and associated practical considerations when integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence in guideline development.

Review team level

In a guideline process, it is common for syntheses of quantitative and qualitative evidence to be done separately by different teams and then to integrate the evidence. A practical consideration relates to the organisation, composition and expertise of the review teams and ways of working. If the quantitative and qualitative reviews are being conducted separately and then brought together by the same team members, who are equally comfortable operating within both paradigms, then a consistent approach across both paradigms becomes possible. If, however, a team is being split between the quantitative and qualitative reviews, then the strengths of specialisation can be harnessed, for example, in quality assessment or synthesis. Optimally, at least one, if not more, of the team members should be involved in both quantitative and qualitative reviews to offer the possibility of making connexions throughout the review and not simply at re-agreed junctures. This mirrors O’Cathain’s conclusion that mixed-methods primary research tends to work only when there is a principal investigator who values and is able to oversee integration. 9 10 While the above decisions have been articulated in the context of two types of evidence, variously quantitative and qualitative, they equally apply when considering how to handle studies reporting a mixed-method study design, where data are usually disaggregated into quantitative and qualitative for the purposes of synthesis (see case study 3—risk communication in humanitarian disasters).

Question formulation

Clearly specified key question(s), derived from a scoping or consultation exercise, will make it clear if quantitative and qualitative evidence is required in a guideline development process and which aspects will be addressed by which types of evidence. For the remaining stages of the process, as documented below, a review team faces challenges as to whether to handle each type of evidence separately, regardless of whether sequentially or in parallel, with a view to joining the two products on completion or to attempt integration throughout the review process. In each case, the underlying choice is of efficiencies and potential comparability vs sensitivity to the underlying paradigm.

Once key questions are clearly defined, the guideline development group typically needs to consider whether to conduct a single sensitive search to address all potential subtopics (lumping) or whether to conduct specific searches for each subtopic (splitting). 36 A related consideration is whether to search separately for qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method evidence ‘streams’ or whether to conduct a single search and then identify specific study types at the subsequent sifting stage. These two considerations often mean a trade-off between a single search process involving very large numbers of records or a more protracted search process retrieving smaller numbers of records. Both approaches have advantages and choice may depend on the respective availability of resources for searching and sifting.

Screening and selecting studies

Closely related to decisions around searching are considerations relating to screening and selecting studies for inclusion in a systematic review. An important consideration here is whether the review team will screen records for all review types, regardless of their subsequent involvement (‘altruistic sifting’), or specialise in screening for the study type with which they are most familiar. The risk of missing relevant reports might be minimised by whole team screening for empirical reports in the first instance and then coding them for a specific quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods report at a subsequent stage.

Assessment of methodological limitations in primary studies

Within a guideline process, review teams may be more limited in their choice of instruments to assess methodological limitations of primary studies as there are mandatory requirements to use the Cochrane risk of bias tool 37 to feed into Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) 38 or to select from a small pool of qualitative appraisal instruments in order to apply GRADE; Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQual) 39 to assess the overall certainty or confidence in findings. The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group has recently issued guidance on the selection of appraisal instruments and core assessment criteria. 40 The Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool, which is currently undergoing further development, offers a single quality assessment instrument for quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies. 41 Other options include using corresponding instruments from within the same ‘stable’, for example, using different Critical Appraisal Skills Programme instruments. 42 While using instruments developed by the same team or organisation may achieve a degree of epistemological consonance, benefits may come more from consistency of approach and reporting rather than from a shared view of quality. Alternatively, a more paradigm-sensitive approach would involve selecting the best instrument for each respective review while deferring challenges from later heterogeneity of reporting.

Data extraction

The way in which data and evidence are extracted from primary research studies for review will be influenced by the type of integrated synthesis being undertaken and the review purpose. Initially, decisions need to be made regarding the nature and type of data and evidence that are to be extracted from the included studies. Method-specific reporting guidelines 43 44 provide a good template as to what quantitative and qualitative data it is potentially possible to extract from different types of method-specific study reports, although in practice reporting quality varies. Online supplementary file 5 provides a hypothetical example of the different types of studies from which quantitative and qualitative evidence could potentially be extracted for synthesis.

The decisions around what data or evidence to extract will be guided by how ‘integrated’ the mixed-method review will be. For those reviews where the quantitative and qualitative findings of studies are synthesised separately and integrated at the point of findings (eg, segregated or contingent approaches or sequential synthesis design), separate data extraction approaches will likely be used.

Where integration occurs during the process of the review (eg, integrated approach or convergent synthesis design), an integrated approach to data extraction may be considered, depending on the purpose of the review. This may involve the use of a data extraction framework, the choice of which needs to be congruent with the approach to synthesis chosen for the review. 40 45 The integrative or theoretical framework may be decided on a priori if a pre-developed theoretical or conceptual framework is available in the literature. 27 The development of a framework may alternatively arise from the reading of the included studies, in relation to the purpose of the review, early in the process. The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group provide further guidance on extraction of qualitative data, including use of software. 40

Synthesis and integration

Relatively few synthesis methods start off being integrated from the beginning, and these methods have generally been subject to less testing and evaluation particularly in a guideline context (see table 1 ). A review design that started off being integrated from the beginning may be suitable for some guideline contexts (such as in case study 3—risk communication in humanitarian disasters—where there was little evidence of effect), but in general if there are sufficient trials then a separate systematic review and meta-analysis will be required for a guideline. Other papers in this series offer guidance on methods for synthesising quantitative 46 and qualitative evidence 14 in reviews that take a complexity perspective. Further guidance on integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence in a systematic review is provided by the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group. 19 27 29 40 47

Types of findings produced by specific methods

It is highly likely (unless there are well-designed process evaluations) that the primary studies may not themselves seek to address the complexity-related questions required for a guideline process. In which case, review authors will need to configure the available evidence and transform the evidence through the synthesis process to produce explanations, propositions and hypotheses (ie, findings) that were not obvious at primary study level. It is important that guideline commissioners, developers and review authors are aware that specific methods are intended to produce a type of finding with a specific purpose (such as developing new theory in the case of meta-ethnography). 48 Case study 1 (antenatal care guideline) provides an example of how a meta-ethnography was used to develop a new theory as an end product, 48 49 as well as framework synthesis which produced descriptive and explanatory findings that were more easily incorporated into the guideline process. 27 The definitions ( box 5 ) may be helpful when defining the different types of findings.

Different levels of findings

Descriptive findings —qualitative evidence-driven translated descriptive themes that do not move beyond the primary studies.

Explanatory findings —may either be at a descriptive or theoretical level. At the descriptive level, qualitative evidence is used to explain phenomena observed in quantitative results, such as why implementation failed in specific circumstances. At the theoretical level, the transformed and interpreted findings that go beyond the primary studies can be used to explain the descriptive findings. The latter description is generally the accepted definition in the wider qualitative community.

Hypothetical or theoretical finding —qualitative evidence-driven transformed themes (or lines of argument) that go beyond the primary studies. Although similar, Thomas and Harden 56 make a distinction in the purposes between two types of theoretical findings: analytical themes and the product of meta-ethnographies, third-order interpretations. 48

Analytical themes are a product of interrogating descriptive themes by placing the synthesis within an external theoretical framework (such as the review question and subquestions) and are considered more appropriate when a specific review question is being addressed (eg, in a guideline or to inform policy). 56

Third-order interpretations come from translating studies into one another while preserving the original context and are more appropriate when a body of literature is being explored in and of itself with broader or emergent review questions. 48

Bringing mixed-method evidence together in evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks

A critical element of guideline development is the formulation of recommendations by the Guideline Development Group, and EtD frameworks help to facilitate this process. 16 The EtD framework can also be used as a mechanism to integrate and display quantitative and qualitative evidence and findings mapped against the EtD framework domains with hyperlinks to more detailed evidence summaries from contributing reviews (see table 1 ). It is commonly the EtD framework that enables the findings of the separate quantitative and qualitative reviews to be brought together in a guideline process. Specific challenges when populating the DECIDE evidence to decision framework 15 were noted in case study 3 (risk communication in humanitarian disasters) as there was an absence of intervention effect data and the interventions to communicate public health risks were context specific and varied. These problems would not, however, have been addressed by substitution of the DECIDE framework with the new INTEGRATE 16 evidence to decision framework. A d ifferent type of EtD framework needs to be developed for reviews that do not include sufficient evidence of intervention effect.

Mixed-method review and synthesis methods are generally the least developed of all systematic review methods. It is acknowledged that methods for combining quantitative and qualitative evidence are generally poorly articulated. 29 50 There are however some fairly well-established methods for using qualitative evidence to explore aspects of complexity (such as contextual, implementation and outcome complexity), which can be combined with evidence of effect (see sections A and B of table 1 ). 14 There are good examples of systematic reviews that use these methods to combine quantitative and qualitative evidence, and examples of guideline recommendations that were informed by evidence from both quantitative and qualitative reviews (eg, case studies 1–3). With the exception of case study 3 (risk communication), the quantitative and qualitative reviews for these specific guidelines have been conducted separately, and the findings subsequently brought together in an EtD framework to inform recommendations.

Other mixed-method review designs have potential to contribute to understanding of complex interventions and to explore aspects of wider health systems complexity but have not been sufficiently developed and tested for this specific purpose, or used in a guideline process (section C of table 1 ). Some methods such as meta-narrative reviews also explore different questions to those usually asked in a guideline process. Methods for processing (eg, quality appraisal) and synthesising the highly diverse evidence suggested in tables 2 and 3 that are required to explore specific aspects of health systems complexity (such as system adaptivity) and to populate some sections of the INTEGRATE EtD framework remain underdeveloped or in need of development.

In addition to the required methodological development mentioned above, there is no GRADE approach 38 for assessing confidence in findings developed from combined quantitative and qualitative evidence. Another paper in this series outlines how to deal with complexity and grading different types of quantitative evidence, 51 and the GRADE CERQual approach for qualitative findings is described elsewhere, 39 but both these approaches are applied to method-specific and not mixed-method findings. An unofficial adaptation of GRADE was used in the risk communication guideline that reported mixed-method findings. Nor is there a reporting guideline for mixed-method reviews, 47 and for now reports will need to conform to the relevant reporting requirements of the respective method-specific guideline. There is a need to further adapt and test DECIDE, 15 WHO-INTEGRATE 16 and other types of evidence to decision frameworks to accommodate evidence from mixed-method syntheses which do not set out to determine the statistical effects of interventions and in circumstances where there are no trials.

When conducting quantitative and qualitative reviews that will subsequently be combined, there are specific considerations for managing and integrating the different types of evidence throughout the review process. We have summarised different options for combining qualitative and quantitative evidence in mixed-method syntheses that guideline developers and systematic reviewers can choose from, as well as outlining the opportunities to integrate evidence at different stages of the review and guideline development process.

Review commissioners, authors and guideline developers generally have less experience of combining qualitative and evidence in mixed-methods reviews. In particular, there is a relatively small group of reviewers who are skilled at undertaking fully integrated mixed-method reviews. Commissioning additional qualitative and mixed-method reviews creates an additional cost. Large complex mixed-method reviews generally take more time to complete. Careful consideration needs to be given as to which guidelines would benefit most from additional qualitative and mixed-method syntheses. More training is required to develop capacity and there is a need to develop processes for preparing the guideline panel to consider and use mixed-method evidence in their decision-making.

This paper has presented how qualitative and quantitative evidence, combined in mixed-method reviews, can help understand aspects of complex interventions and the systems within which they are implemented. There are further opportunities to use these methods, and to further develop the methods, to look more widely at additional aspects of complexity. There is a range of review designs and synthesis methods to choose from depending on the question being asked or the questions that may emerge during the conduct of the synthesis. Additional methods need to be developed (or existing methods further adapted) in order to synthesise the full range of diverse evidence that is desirable to explore the complexity-related questions when complex interventions are implemented into health systems. We encourage review commissioners and authors, and guideline developers to consider using mixed-methods reviews and synthesis in guidelines and to report on their usefulness in the guideline development process.

Handling editor: Soumyadeep Bhaumik

Contributors: JN, AB, GM, KF, ÖT and ES drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to paper development and writing and agreed the final manuscript. Anayda Portela and Susan Norris from WHO managed the series. Helen Smith was series Editor. We thank all those who provided feedback on various iterations.

Funding: Funding provided by the World Health Organization Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health through grants received from the United States Agency for International Development and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation.

Disclaimer: ÖT is a staff member of WHO. The author alone is responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the decisions or policies of WHO.

Competing interests: No financial interests declared. JN, AB and ÖT have an intellectual interest in GRADE CERQual; and JN has an intellectual interest in the iCAT_SR tool.

Patient consent: Not required.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Data sharing statement: No additional data are available.

Supplemental material: This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Writing a quantitative research question

Formulating a quantitative research question can often be a difficult task.  When composing a research question, a researcher needs to determine if they want to describe data, compare differences among groups, assess a relationship, or determine if a set of variables predict another variable.  The type of question the researcher asks will help to determine the type of statistical analysis that needs to be conducted.  It is also important to consider what specific variables need to be assessed when writing a research question.  The researcher must be certain all variables are quantifiable, or measurable. Measuring variables can be as simple as having participants report their age or as involved as having participants answer survey questions that make up a reliable instrument.  Some examples of different types of research questions are presented below:

Discover How We Assist to Edit Your Dissertation Chapters

Aligning theoretical framework, gathering articles, synthesizing gaps, articulating a clear methodology and data plan, and writing about the theoretical and practical implications of your research are part of our comprehensive dissertation editing services.

• Bring dissertation editing expertise to chapters 1-5 in timely manner.
• Track all changes, then work with you to bring about scholarly writing.
• Ongoing support to address committee feedback, reducing revisions.

Descriptive:

Describe the teachers’ perceptions of the newly implemented reading assessment program.

The goal of a  descriptive  research question is to describe the data.  The researcher cannot infer any conclusions from this type of analysis; it simply presents data.  Descriptive questions do not have corresponding null and alternative hypotheses because the researcher is not making inferences.  Descriptive studies can be conducted on categorical or continuous data.

Comparative:

Are there differences in students’ grades by gender (male vs. female)?

Are there differences in job level (entry vs. mid vs. executive) by gender (male vs. female)?

Comparative questions can be assessed using a continuous variable and a categorical grouping variable, as well as with two categorical grouping variables.  They type of analysis will vary depending on the types of data.

Relationship:

Is there a relationship between age and fitness level?

Is there a relationship between ice cream sales and temperature at noon?

Questions that assess relationships do not require a definitive independent and dependent variable, but two variables are required; they can be considered variables of interest as opposed to independent and dependent variables.  Data used for this type of analysis can be dichotomous, ordinal, or continuous.  They type of analysis will vary depending on the types of data.

Predictive:

Do age, gender, and education predict income?

Does a pitcher’s ERA predict the number of wins the team has?

Predictive questions have a definitive independent and dependent variable.  Typically, the independent variable should be continuous or dichotomous, but nominal and ordinal variables can be used.  When nominal and ordinal variables are used as predictors, they must be dummy coded.  Like the independent variable, the dependent variable is typically continuous or dichotomous, but can also be ordinal or nominal.  The type of analysis that is appropriate will vary based upon the type of data.