-
Journal of Preventive Medicine and... Mar 2023Qualitative research methodology has been applied with increasing frequency in various fields, including in healthcare research, where quantitative research methodology... (Review)
Review
Qualitative research methodology has been applied with increasing frequency in various fields, including in healthcare research, where quantitative research methodology has traditionally dominated, with an empirically driven approach involving statistical analysis. Drawing upon artifacts and verbal data collected from in-depth interviews or participatory observations, qualitative research examines the comprehensive experiences of research participants who have experienced salient yet unappreciated phenomena. In this study, we review 6 representative qualitative research methodologies in terms of their characteristics and analysis methods: consensual qualitative research, phenomenological research, qualitative case study, grounded theory, photovoice, and content analysis. We mainly focus on specific aspects of data analysis and the description of results, while also providing a brief overview of each methodology's philosophical background. Furthermore, since quantitative researchers have criticized qualitative research methodology for its perceived lack of validity, we examine various validation methods of qualitative research. This review article intends to assist researchers in employing an ideal qualitative research methodology and in reviewing and evaluating qualitative research with proper standards and criteria.
Topics: Humans; Qualitative Research; Research Design; Grounded Theory; Delivery of Health Care; Data Analysis
PubMed: 37055353
DOI: 10.3961/jpmph.22.471 -
Evidence-based Mental Health Nov 2019Meta-analysis is of fundamental importance to obtain an unbiased assessment of the available evidence. In general, the use of meta-analysis has been increasing over the...
OBJECTIVE
Meta-analysis is of fundamental importance to obtain an unbiased assessment of the available evidence. In general, the use of meta-analysis has been increasing over the last three decades with mental health as a major research topic. It is then essential to well understand its methodology and interpret its results. In this publication, we describe how to perform a meta-analysis with the freely available statistical software environment R, using a working example taken from the field of mental health.
METHODS
R package meta is used to conduct standard meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses for missing binary outcome data and potential selection bias are conducted with R package metasens. All essential R commands are provided and clearly described to conduct and report analyses.
RESULTS
The working example considers a binary outcome: we show how to conduct a fixed effect and random effects meta-analysis and subgroup analysis, produce a forest and funnel plot and to test and adjust for funnel plot asymmetry. All these steps work similar for other outcome types.
CONCLUSIONS
R represents a powerful and flexible tool to conduct meta-analyses. This publication gives a brief glimpse into the topic and provides directions to more advanced meta-analysis methods available in R.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Software
PubMed: 31563865
DOI: 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117 -
BMC Medical Research Methodology Nov 2012The syntheses of multiple qualitative studies can pull together data across different contexts, generate new theoretical or conceptual models, identify research gaps,...
BACKGROUND
The syntheses of multiple qualitative studies can pull together data across different contexts, generate new theoretical or conceptual models, identify research gaps, and provide evidence for the development, implementation and evaluation of health interventions. This study aims to develop a framework for reporting the synthesis of qualitative health research.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search for guidance and reviews relevant to the synthesis of qualitative research, methodology papers, and published syntheses of qualitative health research in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and relevant organisational websites to May 2011. Initial items were generated inductively from guides to synthesizing qualitative health research. The preliminary checklist was piloted against forty published syntheses of qualitative research, purposively selected to capture a range of year of publication, methods and methodologies, and health topics. We removed items that were duplicated, impractical to assess, and rephrased items for clarity.
RESULTS
The Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREQ) statement consists of 21 items grouped into five main domains: introduction, methods and methodology, literature search and selection, appraisal, and synthesis of findings.
CONCLUSIONS
The ENTREQ statement can help researchers to report the stages most commonly associated with the synthesis of qualitative health research: searching and selecting qualitative research, quality appraisal, and methods for synthesising qualitative findings. The synthesis of qualitative research is an expanding and evolving methodological area and we would value feedback from all stakeholders for the continued development and extension of the ENTREQ statement.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Humans; Qualitative Research; Research Design
PubMed: 23185978
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-181 -
Singapore Medical Journal Dec 2018This paper offers a selective overview of the increasingly popular paradigm of qualitative research. We consider the nature of qualitative research questions, describe... (Review)
Review
This paper offers a selective overview of the increasingly popular paradigm of qualitative research. We consider the nature of qualitative research questions, describe common methodologies, discuss data collection and analysis methods, highlight recent innovations and outline principles of rigour. Examples are provided from our own and other authors' published qualitative medical education research. Our aim is to provide both an introduction to some qualitative essentials for readers who are new to this research paradigm and a resource for more experienced readers, such as those who are currently engaged in a qualitative research project and would like a better sense of where their work sits within the broader paradigm.
Topics: Anthropology, Cultural; Data Collection; Education, Medical; Grounded Theory; Humans; Interviews as Topic; Qualitative Research; Research Design
PubMed: 30009321
DOI: 10.11622/smedj.2018093 -
Singapore Medical Journal Mar 2008Focus group discussion is a research methodology in which a small group of participants gather to discuss a specified topic or an issue to generate data. The main...
Focus group discussion is a research methodology in which a small group of participants gather to discuss a specified topic or an issue to generate data. The main characteristic of a focus group is the interaction between the moderator and the group, as well as the interaction between group members. The objective is to give the researcher an understanding of the participants' perspective on the topic in discussion. Focus groups are rapidly gaining popularity in health and medical research. This paper presents a general introduction of the use of focus groups as a research tool within the context of health research, with the intention of promoting its use among researchers in healthcare. A detailed methodology for the conduct of focus groups and analysis of focus group data are discussed. The potentials and limitations of this qualitative research technique are also highlighted.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Focus Groups; Humans; Patient Selection; Qualitative Research
PubMed: 18363011
DOI: No ID Found -
Archives of Toxicology Nov 2022Robust and efficient processes are needed to establish scientific confidence in new approach methodologies (NAMs) if they are to be considered for regulatory... (Review)
Review
Robust and efficient processes are needed to establish scientific confidence in new approach methodologies (NAMs) if they are to be considered for regulatory applications. NAMs need to be fit for purpose, reliable and, for the assessment of human health effects, provide information relevant to human biology. They must also be independently reviewed and transparently communicated. Ideally, NAM developers should communicate with stakeholders such as regulators and industry to identify the question(s), and specified purpose that the NAM is intended to address, and the context in which it will be used. Assessment of the biological relevance of the NAM should focus on its alignment with human biology, mechanistic understanding, and ability to provide information that leads to health protective decisions, rather than solely comparing NAM-based chemical testing results with those from traditional animal test methods. However, when NAM results are compared to historical animal test results, the variability observed within animal test method results should be used to inform performance benchmarks. Building on previous efforts, this paper proposes a framework comprising five essential elements to establish scientific confidence in NAMs for regulatory use: fitness for purpose, human biological relevance, technical characterization, data integrity and transparency, and independent review. Universal uptake of this framework would facilitate the timely development and use of NAMs by the international community. While this paper focuses on NAMs for assessing human health effects of pesticides and industrial chemicals, many of the suggested elements are expected to apply to other types of chemicals and to ecotoxicological effect assessments.
Topics: Animals; Ecotoxicology; Humans; Pesticides; Research Design; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 35987941
DOI: 10.1007/s00204-022-03365-4 -
Military Medical Research Oct 2023In the United States (US), the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program is the only comprehensive source of population-based information that includes... (Review)
Review
In the United States (US), the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program is the only comprehensive source of population-based information that includes stage of cancer at the time of diagnosis and patient survival data. This program aims to provide a database about cancer incidence and survival for studies of surveillance and the development of analytical and methodological tools in the cancer field. Currently, the SEER program covers approximately half of the total cancer patients in the US. A growing number of clinical studies have applied the SEER database in various aspects. However, the intrinsic features of the SEER database, such as the huge data volume and complexity of data types, have hindered its application. In this review, we provided a systematic overview of the commonly used methodologies and study designs for retrospective epidemiological research in order to illustrate the application of the SEER database. Therefore, the goal of this review is to assist researchers in the selection of appropriate methods and study designs for enhancing the robustness and reliability of clinical studies by mining the SEER database.
Topics: Humans; United States; Retrospective Studies; Reproducibility of Results; Research Design; SEER Program; Neoplasms
PubMed: 37899480
DOI: 10.1186/s40779-023-00488-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018Recruiting participants to trials can be extremely difficult. Identifying strategies that improve trial recruitment would benefit both trialists and health research. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Recruiting participants to trials can be extremely difficult. Identifying strategies that improve trial recruitment would benefit both trialists and health research.
OBJECTIVES
To quantify the effects of strategies for improving recruitment of participants to randomised trials. A secondary objective is to assess the evidence for the effect of the research setting (e.g. primary care versus secondary care) on recruitment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register (CMR) in the Cochrane Library (July 2012, searched 11 February 2015); MEDLINE and MEDLINE In Process (OVID) (1946 to 10 February 2015); Embase (OVID) (1996 to 2015 Week 06); Science Citation Index & Social Science Citation Index (ISI) (2009 to 11 February 2015) and ERIC (EBSCO) (2009 to 11 February 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of methods to increase recruitment to randomised trials. This includes non-healthcare studies and studies recruiting to hypothetical trials. We excluded studies aiming to increase response rates to questionnaires or trial retention and those evaluating incentives and disincentives for clinicians to recruit participants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data on: the method evaluated; country in which the study was carried out; nature of the population; nature of the study setting; nature of the study to be recruited into; randomisation or quasi-randomisation method; and numbers and proportions in each intervention group. We used a risk difference to estimate the absolute improvement and the 95% confidence interval (CI) to describe the effect in individual trials. We assessed heterogeneity between trial results. We used GRADE to judge the certainty we had in the evidence coming from each comparison.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 68 eligible trials (24 new to this update) with more than 74,000 participants. There were 63 studies involving interventions aimed directly at trial participants, while five evaluated interventions aimed at people recruiting participants. All studies were in health care.We found 72 comparisons, but just three are supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE.1. Open trials rather than blinded, placebo trials. The absolute improvement was 10% (95% CI 7% to 13%).2. Telephone reminders to people who do not respond to a postal invitation. The absolute improvement was 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%). This result applies to trials that have low underlying recruitment. We are less certain for trials that start out with moderately good recruitment (i.e. over 10%).3. Using a particular, bespoke, user-testing approach to develop participant information leaflets. This method involved spending a lot of time working with the target population for recruitment to decide on the content, format and appearance of the participant information leaflet. This made little or no difference to recruitment: absolute improvement was 1% (95% CI -1% to 3%).We had moderate-certainty evidence for eight other comparisons; our confidence was reduced for most of these because the results came from a single study. Three of the methods were changes to trial management, three were changes to how potential participants received information, one was aimed at recruiters, and the last was a test of financial incentives. All of these comparisons would benefit from other researchers replicating the evaluation. There were no evaluations in paediatric trials.We had much less confidence in the other 61 comparisons because the studies had design flaws, were single studies, had very uncertain results or were hypothetical (mock) trials rather than real ones.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The literature on interventions to improve recruitment to trials has plenty of variety but little depth. Only 3 of 72 comparisons are supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE: having an open trial and using telephone reminders to non-responders to postal interventions both increase recruitment; a specialised way of developing participant information leaflets had little or no effect. The methodology research community should improve the evidence base by replicating evaluations of existing strategies, rather than developing and testing new ones.
Topics: Humans; Patient Education as Topic; Patient Selection; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reminder Systems; Sample Size; Telephone
PubMed: 29468635
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6 -
Social Science & Medicine (1982) Mar 2021Applying a complex systems perspective to public health evaluation may increase the relevance and strength of evidence to improve health and reduce health inequalities.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Applying a complex systems perspective to public health evaluation may increase the relevance and strength of evidence to improve health and reduce health inequalities. In this review of methods, we aimed to: (i) classify and describe different complex systems methods in evaluation applied to public health; and (ii) examine the kinds of evaluative evidence generated by these different methods.
METHODS
We adapted critical review methods to identify evaluations of public health interventions that used systems methods. We conducted expert consultation, searched electronic databases (Scopus, MEDLINE, Web of Science), and followed citations of relevant systematic reviews. Evaluations were included if they self-identified as using systems- or complexity-informed methods and if they evaluated existing or hypothetical public health interventions. Case studies were selected to illustrate different types of complex systems evaluation.
FINDINGS
Seventy-four unique studies met our inclusion criteria. A framework was developed to map the included studies onto different stages of the evaluation process, which parallels the planning, delivery, assessment, and further delivery phases of the interventions they seek to inform; these stages include: 1) theorising; 2) prediction (simulation); 3) process evaluation; 4) impact evaluation; and 5) further prediction (simulation). Within this framework, we broadly categorised methodological approaches as mapping, modelling, network analysis and 'system framing' (the application of a complex systems perspective to a range of study designs). Studies frequently applied more than one type of systems method.
CONCLUSIONS
A range of complex systems methods can be utilised, adapted, or combined to produce different types of evaluative evidence. Further methodological innovation in systems evaluation may generate stronger evidence to improve health and reduce health inequalities in our complex world.
Topics: Health Services; Humans; Public Health; Research Design
PubMed: 33508655
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113697 -
British Journal of Sports Medicine Mar 2006Variations in definitions and methodologies have created differences in the results and conclusions obtained from studies of football (soccer) injuries, making... (Review)
Review
Variations in definitions and methodologies have created differences in the results and conclusions obtained from studies of football (soccer) injuries, making interstudy comparisons difficult. Therefore an Injury Consensus Group was established under the auspices of Fédération Internationale de Football Association Medical Assessment and Research Centre. A nominal group consensus model approach was used. A working document on definitions, methodology, and implementation was discussed by the group. Iterative draft statements were prepared and circulated to members of the group for comment before the final consensus statement was produced. Definitions of injury, recurrent injury, severity, and training and match exposures in football together with criteria for classifying injuries in terms of location, type, diagnosis, and causation are proposed. Proforma for recording players' baseline information, injuries, and training and match exposures are presented. Recommendations are made on how the incidence of match and training injuries should be reported and a checklist of issues and information that should be included in published reports of studies of football injuries is presented.
Topics: Athletic Injuries; Consensus; Humans; Injury Severity Score; Recurrence; Research Design; Soccer
PubMed: 16505073
DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.2005.025270