Pierre Pluye

General Health Professions · 2003–2019

A researcher in the Science corpus: 12 papers; trusts 26 researchers and is trusted by 6 researchers here, as inferred from the citation graph.

Subfields

• General Health Professions — 76 citations into it; #1,576 of 4,781 by trust here, #936 by citations
• Statistics and Probability — 40 citations into it; #7,871 of 12,932 by trust here, #4,517 by citations
• Sociology and Political Science — 32 citations into it
• Management Science and Operations Research — 29 citations into it
• Education — 20 citations into it
• Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health — 12 citations into it

Whom Pierre Pluye trusts overall

Their strongest outbound trust, strongest first, inferred from their citations.

1. Alan Bryman
2. Alicia O'Cathain
3. R. Burke Johnson
4. J. D. Creswell
5. M. Sandelowski
6. Julian P. T. Higgins
7. Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
8. Quan Nha Hong
9. R. Pawson
10. Kimberly A. Neuendorf

Who trusts Pierre Pluye overall

1. Quan Nha Hong
2. C. Bryan
3. Marie-Pierre Gagnon
4. Phillipa McKeering
5. Araceli Gonzalez-Reyes
6. Diane Lorenzetti
7. P. Baker
8. Deirdre O’Shea
9. Cindy Stern
10. Jill M. Aldridge

Papers from Pierre Pluye's perspective

Ordered by how strongly the researchers Pierre Pluye trusts endorse each paper. Same corpus, a different order for every researcher.

1. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?
2. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. (Journal of Clinical Epidemiology)
3. Designing A Mixed Methods Study In Primary Care (Annals of Family Medicine)
4. Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies
5. Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research
6. Using meta ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example (Journal of Health Services Research and Policy)
7. How expert are the experts? An exploration of the concept of 'expert' within Delphi panel techniques. (Nurse Researcher)
8. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. (Journal of Advanced Nursing)
9. Integration and Publications as Indicators of "Yield" From Mixed Methods Studies
10. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods (Systematic Reviews)

Their papers

• A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews. (2009) — 1,027 citations
• Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence (2017) — 614 citations
• Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) (2018) — 878 citations
• A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects (2015) — 657 citations
• Uncovering the Benefits of Participatory Research: Implications of a Realist Review for Health Research and Practice (2012) — 1,084 citations
• Understanding divergence of quantitative and qualitative data (or results) in mixed methods studies (2009) — 91 citations
• Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study. (2019) — 817 citations
• The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers (2018) — 3,722 citations
• Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. (2014) — 1,245 citations
• Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. (2012) — 1,210 citations
• Systematic Review of Factors Influencing the Adoption of Information and Communication Technologies by Healthcare Professionals (2012) — 604 citations
• Shortcomings of health information on the Internet. (2003) — 409 citations