Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

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.

Https

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.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jan;15(1):18-36.
doi: 10.1177/1558689820914806. Epub 2020 Apr 13.

Visual Participatory Analysis: A Qualitative Method for Engaging Participants in Interpreting the Results of Randomized Controlled Trials of Health Interventions

Jenevieve Mannell  1 , Katy Davis  2 , Kohenour Akter  3 , Hannah Jennings  4 , Joanna Morrison  1 , Abul Kuddus  3 , Edward Fottrell  1
Affiliations

Visual Participatory Analysis: A Qualitative Method for Engaging Participants in Interpreting the Results of Randomized Controlled Trials of Health Interventions

Jenevieve Mannell et al. J Mix Methods Res. 2021 Jan.

Abstract

This article contributes to the field of mixed methods by introducing a new method for eliciting participant perspectives of the quantitative results of randomized controlled trials. Participants are rarely asked to interpret trial results, obscuring potentially valuable information about why a trial either succeeds or fails. We introduce a unique method called visual participatory analysis and discuss the insights gained in its use as part of a trial to prevent risk and reduce the prevalence of diabetes in Bangladesh. Findings highlight benefits such as elucidating contextualized explanations for null results and identifying causal mechanisms, as well as challenges around communicating randomized controlled trial methodologies to lay audiences. We conclude that visual participatory analysis is a valuable method to use after a trial.

Keywords: Bangladesh; diabetes; participatory analysis; randomized controlled trials.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Final drawings.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Attride-Stirling J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385-405.
    1. Bandura A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education & Behavior, 31(2), 143-164. 10.1177/1090198104263660 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bauer M. W. (2009). The evolution of public understanding of science: Discourse and comparative evidence. Science, Technology and Society, 14(2), 221-240. 10.1177/097172180901400202 - DOI
    1. Bond V., Ngwenya F., Murray E., Ngwenya N., Viljoen L., Gumede D., Bwalya C., Mantantana J., Hoddinott G., Dodd P. J., Ayles H., Simwinga M., Wallman S., Seeley J. (2019). Value and limitations of Broad Brush Surveys used in community-randomized trials in Southern Africa. Qualitative Health Research, 29(5), 700-718. 10.1177/1049732318809940 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brownson R. C., Colditz G. A., Proctor E. K. (2017). Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice. Oxford University Press; 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199751877.001.0001 - DOI