Literature DB >> 25854614

Using mixed methods to identify and answer clinically relevant research questions.

Catherine L Shneerson1, Nicola K Gale2.   

Abstract

The need for mixed methods research in answering health care questions is becoming increasingly recognized because of the complexity of factors that affect health outcomes. In this article, we argue for the value of using a qualitatively driven mixed method approach for identifying and answering clinically relevant research questions. This argument is illustrated by findings from a study on the self-management practices of cancer survivors and the exploration of one particular clinically relevant finding about higher uptake of self-management in cancer survivors who had received chemotherapy treatment compared with those who have not. A cross-sectional study generated findings that formed the basis for the qualitative study, by informing the purposive sampling strategy and generating new qualitative research questions. Using a quantitative research component to supplement a qualitative study can enhance the generalizability and clinical relevance of the findings and produce detailed, contextualized, and rich answers to research questions that would be unachievable through quantitative or qualitative methods alone.
© The Author(s) 2015.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cancer; illness and disease, chronic; interviews; qualitative; research design; research, mixed methods; self-care; survivorship

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25854614     DOI: 10.1177/1049732315580107

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Health Res        ISSN: 1049-7323


  8 in total

1.  Mixed-method approaches to strengthen economic evaluations in implementation research.

Authors:  Alex R Dopp; Peter Mundey; Lana O Beasley; Jane F Silovsky; Daniel Eisenberg
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2019-01-11       Impact factor: 7.327

2.  Collaboration for Impact: Co-creating a Workforce Development Toolkit Using an Arts-based Approach.

Authors:  Juliet Rayment; Manbinder Sidhu; Polly Wright; Patrick Brown; Sheila Greenfield; Stephen Jeffreys; Nicola Gale
Journal:  Int J Integr Care       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 5.120

3.  Acceptability of intravitreal injections in geographic atrophy: protocol for a mixed-methods pilot study.

Authors:  Jamie Enoch; Arevik Ghulakhszian; David P Crabb; Christiana Dinah; Deanna J Taylor
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-04-24       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  The PROMISES study: a mixed methods approach to explore the acceptability of salivary progesterone testing for preterm birth risk among pregnant women and trained frontline healthcare workers in rural India.

Authors:  Danielle Ashworth; Pankhuri Sharma; Sergio A Silverio; Simi Khan; Nishtha Kathuria; Priyanka Garg; Mohan Ghule; V B Shivkumar; Atul Tayade; Sunil Mehra; Poonam V Shivkumar; Rachel M Tribe
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Clinical researchers' lived experiences with data quality monitoring in clinical trials: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Lauren Houston; Ping Yu; Allison Martin; Yasmine Probst
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-09-20       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  An exploratory study on support for caregivers of people with vision impairment in the UK.

Authors:  Jamie Enoch; Christine Dickinson; Judith Potts; Ahalya Subramanian
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2022-04-13       Impact factor: 3.992

Review 7.  What is known about the role of rural-urban residency in relation to self-management in people affected by cancer who have completed primary treatment? A scoping review.

Authors:  David Nelson; Ian McGonagle; Christine Jackson; Ros Kane
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 3.603

8.  Can rapid approaches to qualitative analysis deliver timely, valid findings to clinical leaders? A mixed methods study comparing rapid and thematic analysis.

Authors:  Beck Taylor; Catherine Henshall; Sara Kenyon; Ian Litchfield; Sheila Greenfield
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-10-08       Impact factor: 2.692

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.