Dataset Information

Creating and supporting a mixed methods health services research team.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To use the experience from a health services research evaluation to provide guidance in team development for mixed methods research.

Methods

The Research Initiative Valuing Eldercare (THRIVE) team was organized by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to evaluate The Green House nursing home culture change program. This article describes the development of the research team and provides insights into how funders might engage with mixed methods research teams to maximize the value of the team.

Results

Like many mixed methods collaborations, the THRIVE team consisted of researchers from diverse disciplines, embracing diverse methodologies, and operating under a framework of nonhierarchical, shared leadership that required new collaborations, engagement, and commitment in the context of finite resources. Strategies to overcome these potential obstacles and achieve success included implementation of a Coordinating Center, dedicated time for planning and collaborating across researchers and methodologies, funded support for in-person meetings, and creative optimization of resources.

Conclusions

Challenges are inevitably present in the formation and operation of effective mixed methods research teams. However, funders and research teams can implement strategies to promote success.

SUBMITTER: Bowers B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3870895 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo describe the ethical issues and experiences of scientists conducting mixed methods health services research and to advance empirical and conceptual discussion on ethical integrity in mixed methods health research.MethodsThe study was conducted with 64 scholars, faculty and consultants from the NIH-funded Mixed Methods Research Training Program (MMRTP) for the Health Sciences. This was a cross-sectional study. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics to characterize responses and open coding to summarize strategies about eight ethical mixed methods research issues. Respondents completed an online survey to elicit experiences related to eight ethical issues (informed consent, confidentiality, data management, burden, safety, equitable recruitment, communication, and dissemination) and strategies for addressing them.ResultsOnly about one-third of respondents thought their research ethics training helped them plan, conduct, or report mixed methods research. The most frequently occurring ethical issues were participant burden, dissemination and equitable recruitment (> 70% endorsement). Despite occurring frequently, < 50% of respondents rated each ethical issue as challenging. The most challenging ethical issues were related to managing participant burden, communication, and dissemination. Strategies reported to address ethical issues were largely not specific or unique to mixed methods with the exception of strategies to mitigate participant burden and, to a lesser degree, to facilitate equitable recruitment and promote dissemination of project results.ConclusionsMixed methods health researchers reported encountering ethical issues often yet varying levels of difficulty and effectiveness in the strategies used to mitigate ethical issues. This study highlights some of the unique challenges faced by mixed methods researchers to plan for and appropriately respond to arising ethical issues such as managing participant burden and confidentiality across data sources and utilizing effective communication and dissemination strategies particularly when working with a multidisciplinary research team. As one of the first empirical studies to examine mixed methods research ethics, our findings highlight the need for greater attention to ethics in health services mixed methods research and training.

Project description:Methodologically sound mixed methods research can improve our understanding of health services by providing a more comprehensive picture of health services than either method can alone. This study describes the frequency of mixed methods in published health services research and compares the presence of methodological components indicative of rigorous approaches across mixed methods, qualitative, and quantitative articles.All empirical articles (n = 1,651) published between 2003 and 2007 from four top-ranked health services journals.All mixed methods articles (n = 47) and random samples of qualitative and quantitative articles were evaluated to identify reporting of key components indicating rigor for each method, based on accepted standards for evaluating the quality of research reports (e.g., use of p-values in quantitative reports, description of context in qualitative reports, and integration in mixed method reports). We used chi-square tests to evaluate differences between article types for each component.Mixed methods articles comprised 2.85 percent (n = 47) of empirical articles, quantitative articles 90.98 percent (n = 1,502), and qualitative articles 6.18 percent (n = 102). There was a statistically significant difference (?(2) (1) = 12.20, p = .0005, Cramer's V = 0.09, odds ratio = 1.49 [95% confidence interval = 1,27, 1.74]) in the proportion of quantitative methodological components present in mixed methods compared to quantitative papers (21.94 versus 47.07 percent, respectively) but no statistically significant difference (?(2) (1) = 0.02, p = .89, Cramer's V = 0.01) in the proportion of qualitative methodological components in mixed methods compared to qualitative papers (21.34 versus 25.47 percent, respectively).Few published health services research articles use mixed methods. The frequency of key methodological components is variable. Suggestions are provided to increase the transparency of mixed methods studies and the presence of key methodological components in published reports.

Project description:BackgroundThe Covid-19 pandemic has so far infected more than 30 million people in the world, having major impact on global health with collateral damage. In Mozambique, a public state of emergency was declared at the end of March 2020. This has limited people's movements and reduced public services, leading to a decrease in the number of people accessing health care facilities. An implementation research project, The Alert Community for a Prepared Hospital, has been promoting access to maternal and child health care, in Natikiri, Nampula, for the last four years. Nampula has the second highest incidence of Covid-19. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of Covid-19 pandemic Government restrictions on access to maternal and child healthcare services. We compared health centres in Nampula city with healthcare centres in our research catchment area. We wanted to see if our previous research interventions have led to a more resilient response from the community.MethodsMixed-methods research, descriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective, using a review of patient visit documentation. We compared maternal and child health care unit statistical indicators from March-May 2019 to the same time-period in 2020. We tested for significant changes in access to maternal and child health services, using KrushKall Wallis, One-way Anova and mean and standard deviation tests. We compared interviews with health professionals, traditional birth attendants and patients in the two areas. We gathered data from a comparable city health centre and the main city referral hospital. The Marrere health centre and Marrere General Hospital were the two Alert Community for a Prepared Hospital intervention sites.ResultsComparing 2019 quantitative maternal health services access indicators with those from 2020, showed decreases in most important indicators: family planning visits and elective C-sections dropped 28%; first antenatal visit occurring in the first trimester dropped 26%; hospital deliveries dropped a statistically significant 4% (p = 0.046), while home deliveries rose 74%; children vaccinated down 20%.ConclusionOur results demonstrated the negative collateral effects of Covid-19 pandemic Government restrictions, on access to maternal and child healthcare services, and highlighted the need to improve the health information system in Mozambique.

Project description:BackgroundDigital innovations in medicine are disruptive technologies that can change the way diagnostic procedures and treatments are delivered. Such innovations are typically designed in teams with different disciplinary backgrounds. This paper concentrates on 2 interdisciplinary research teams with 20 members from the medicine and engineering sciences working jointly on digital health solutions.ObjectiveThe aim of this paper was to identify factors on the individual, team, and organizational levels that influence the implementation of interdisciplinary research projects elaborating on digital applications for medicine and, based on the results, to draw conclusions for the proactive design of the interdisciplinary research process to make these projects successful.MethodsTo achieve this aim, 2 interdisciplinary research teams were observed, and a small case study (response rate: 15/20, 75%) was conducted using a web-based questionnaire containing both closed and open self-report questions. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was calculated to analyze the quantitative data. The answers to the open-ended questions were subjected to qualitative content analysis.ResultsWith regard to the interdisciplinary research projects investigated, the influencing factors of the three levels presented (individual, team, and organization) have proven to be relevant for interdisciplinary research cooperation.ConclusionsWith regard to recommendations for the future design of interdisciplinary cooperation, management aspects are addressed, that is, the installation of a coordinator, systematic definition of goals, required resources, and necessary efforts on the part of the involved interdisciplinary research partners. As only small groups were investigated, further research in this field is necessary to derive more general recommendations for interdisciplinary research teams.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00023909, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00023909 ; German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00025077, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00025077.

Project description:BackgroundCo-creation strategies, such as cooperative planning, are promising as a means to ensure that physical activity interventions address real-world problems and are tailored to the target group. This has already been validated in diverse settings. However, questions targeting the transferability of cooperative planning to new settings and the key factors influencing its success or failure remain unclear. At the same time, co-creation processes are complex, and evaluation can be challenging. Following calls for detailed reporting, this paper describes the programme activities, the underlying logic, and methodological design of a study that aims to evaluate the transfer of cooperative planning to new settings and to explore the associated key determinants.MethodsCooperative planning was utilized as a strategy to target physical activity promotion in three real-world German settings in the nursing care and automotive mechatronics sectors. This involved researchers working alongside stakeholders from practice and policy to conjointly develop new interventions to promote physical activity in physically demanding jobs. A pragmatic approach is used to evaluate both the transferability and key determinants of this strategy. We developed a logic model for this co-creation process that describes the underlying assumptions and guides the evaluation. The evaluation outcomes of this study include planning meetings, newly developed interventions, and the determinants that are likely to affect cooperative planning. Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected using questionnaires, documents, and interviews. The quantitative data will be analysed descriptively, while the qualitative data will mainly be analysed using qualitative content analysis, split by settings. Subsequently, data triangulation will be used to integrate the quantitative and qualitative findings, which will then be compared across all three settings.DiscussionThe study findings will contribute to a better understanding of co-creation strategies, their transferability, and key determinants. The practical implications can include a checklist for assessing key determinants and a guideline for transferring cooperative planning into new settings to benefit more people. Ultimately, this study will help to advance co-creation strategies and may be relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers targeting physical activity promotion in various contexts.Trial registrationOpen Science Framework: https://osf.io/r6xnt/ (retrospectively registered).

Project description:BACKGROUND:A country's spending on healthcare significantly improves its population health status. No comparative study has examined how the threat perceived by leaders influences health expenditure and cross-national analyses of authoritarian regimes. The objectives of this study are to examine how time horizons of autocrats influence health expenditure. METHODS:We designed a mixed methods research approach. First, the study used panel data from 1995 to 2010 covering 95 countries (n?=?1208) and applied fixed effects regression models. As a proxy for time horizons, the study generated the predicted survival time for each regime-year using parametric survival analysis and the predictors to model regime failure. Second, we chose Chad, Rwanda and Ivory Coast to apply synthetic control methods for comparative case studies. Armed conflict had significant effects on regime duration and was used for an intervention. We constructed a synthetic version of each country, combining counties that did not or did experience armed conflict to resemble the values of health expenditure predictors for the actual country prior to the intervention. RESULTS:We found that an increase in the natural log form of survival time by 1 resulted in a 1.14 percentage point increase in health expenditure (% of GDP) (1.14, 95% CI?=?0.60-1.69). Furthermore, we found that the difference in health expenditure between the actual Chad and its synthetic version starts to grow following the civil war in 2004 (in 2004, actual: 5.72%, synthetic: 5.91%; in 2005, actual: 3.91%, synthetic: 6.74%). Similarly, a large health expenditure gap between the actual Rwanda and its synthetic control resulted after the peace deal was signed in 2002 (in 2002, actual: 4.18%, synthetic: 4.77%; in 2003, actual: 6.34%, synthetic: 5.03%). In Ivory Coast, the two series diverge substantially during the civil war from 1999 to 2005 (in 1998, actual: 7.30%, synthetic: 7.11%; in 2002, actual: 4.47%, synthetic: 7.43%; in 2007, actual: 6.35%, synthetic: 6.50%). CONCLUSIONS:The findings suggest that health expenditure decreases as regime time horizons shrink, and reducing armed conflict is a way to promote regime stability.