A review of software applications and non‐software approaches in JAN

Many researchers agree that data analysis software can be prohibitively expensive. Researchers collecting data are fortunate if they are affiliated to an institution that subscribes to a catalogue of annual software licences. The advantages of software application becomes apparent when managing large amounts of data and when dealing with multiple modes of data (e.g. text, visual or audio) (Foley & Timonen 2015). In the data analysis sections of JAN articles, quantitative and qualitative researchers commonly report the use of computer programs to assist in data management and analysis. We carried out a descriptive review of JAN studies that use software-assisted and non-software approaches to data analysis for the period July 2015–June 2016 inclusive. The findings should provide nursing and midwifery researchers with an overview of the types of software applications and software-free methods used in contemporary research studies. This descriptive review makes no attempt to comment on the appropriateness of software choices, or the citations quoted to support any research methodology. Furthermore, for convenience of reporting where the term quantitative is mentioned it refers to the studies reported under the quantitative heading in the JAN. In other words, quantitative type studies may occur under other major JAN headings such as clinical trials and these are handled separately. For clarity, the 201 included studies were examined and categorised under the following JAN headings: Reviews (24); Concept analysis (16); Quantitative (77); Clinical trials (4); Qualitative (56); Research methodology (14); and mixed methods (10), totalling 201 articles. Results showed that some researchers use more than one software package for data analysis. Table 1 (row 3) shows that IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) used on its own is the most commonly used software for quantitative studies, thirty-nine (51%), research methodology studies six (43%), mixed-method studies (three of 10) and clinical trials (three out of four). SPSS is also the most popular application used in conjunction with other software applications. Table 1 shows that it was used with one other software packages in 14 (18%) of quantitative studies and it was used alongside three additional software packages for one of 10 mixed-method studies. No software featured as the most likely software application used alongside SPSS. However, SPSS and SPSS for analysis of moment structures (AMOS) were reported in a small number of studies, four (5%) of quantitative studies. Apart from SPSS, in the research methodology category, one study used three software packages (STATISTICA, MedCalc and Factor). Table 1 shows that some articles, seven quantitative studies (9%) did not report software usage despite reporting complex data analysis. Table 1 shows that all 10 mixed method studies reported the use of software and also cited Author(s) to provide justification for either, methodology, guidelines or general approach to data analysis and two of the 10 mixed method studies cited (Braun & Clarke 2006). Meta-method synthesis (Paterson et al. 2001, Clark et al. 2005) Systematic review n = 1 (JBI 2011) n = 1 (Walsh & Downe 2005) n = 1 (Noblit & Hare 1988) Thematic analysis n = 1 (Tong et al. 2012) n = 2 Braun & Clarke 2006) Table 1 shows that only five (21%) of the 24 review articles used software, two used RevMan, one used either STATA, Atlas.ti or NVvivo. Two of these five reviews also cited Author(s) that provided guidelines, methodology or analyses approach. In addition, as little as two (8%) of all 24 reviews used RevMan and one (4%) used STATA software indicating the small number of reviews suitable for meta-analysis. Most of the review articles, 19 (79%) used software-free methods with eight (33%) citing (Whittemore & Knafl 2005) as the most applied software-free methodology. Table 2 shows that software was applied in 27 (48%) of all 56 qualitative articles. Table 2 also shows that NVivo used on its own is the singularly most popular software of choice for qualitative analysis; used in 17 (30%) of articles. The remaining 29 (52%) qualitative studies used a range of software-free approaches with no approach featuring as the most prevalent. However, the phenomenological approaches used by Smith et al. (2009) and Giorgi (1985) featured slightly more than other approaches for qualitative analysis. Also, Graneheim and Lundman (2004) were cited slightly more frequently than other authors outlining content analysis methods. Table 1 shows the concept analysis category where Walker and Avant (2010) was cited for eight (50%) of concept analyses and Rogers et al. (2000) was cited by five (31%) articles. Interestingly, both Tables 1 and 2 shows a wide variation in software programs or combinations of programs with low usage, many occurring with a frequency of four or less than four. Table 3 shows a breakdown of the 8 software packages (listed in Table 2) that were used in qualitative analysis and shows that a broad spectrum of author's methodologies or guidelines were used in addition to software program analysis. (Wodak & Meyer 2009) – discourse theory Foucault (1980) – notions of governmentality. (Alvesson & Deetz 2000, Willig 2009) In conclusion, Table 1 showed that the most commonly applied software program used on its own is SPSS found in 51 (25%) of all 201 included studies. Table 2 shows that NVivo is the second most commonly used program found in 17 (8%) of all included studies. A researcher's choice of software or software-free analysis can be influenced by factors such as the research question, study context, data type, analysis required and access rights to licenced software. Historically, qualitative research analysis was typically carried out using copy and paste in Microsoft Word. According to Polit and Beck (2008), traditional manual methods of analysing quantitative data are increasingly less common as a result of the greater availability of software that can perform indexing functions. Findings from this review should be a stimulus for continued discussion on the rationale for using a particular approach to software-assisted or software-free data analysis. In particular, this review should provide qualitative researchers with an overview of the many and varied authors cited for providing guidelines, methodologies or approaches for qualitative analysis. Walker and Avant (2010) featured for half of the concept analysis articles, and Rodger's Evolutionary Method accounted for approximately a third of the concept analysis studies. Like all research, this review has its limitations. The findings are a 'snapshot' from 1 year's publication of JAN articles, which amount to twelve issues. If JAN articles over a longer or different time period were examined the findings may show different results. It was noteworthy that only one article mentioned the use of Microsoft Word software. This may indicate that word processor software has become so commonplace that it is used without mention.