Dataset Information

Advancing discussion of ethics in mixed methods health services research.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To 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.

Methods

The 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.

Results

Only 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.

Conclusions

Mixed 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.

SUBMITTER: Stadnick NA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8204431 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundGuided by intersectionality frameworks, researchers have documented health disparities at the intersection of multiple axes of social status and position, particularly race and ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. To advance from identifying to intervening in such intersectional health disparities, studies that examine the underlying mechanisms are required. Although much research demonstrates the negative health impacts of perceived discrimination along single axes, quantitative approaches to assessing the role of discrimination in generating intersectional health disparities remain in their infancy. Members of our team recently introduced the Intersectional Discrimination Index (InDI) to address this gap. The InDI comprises three measures of enacted (day-to-day and major) and anticipated discrimination. These attribution-free measures ask about experiences of mistreatment because of who you are. These measures show promise for intersectional health disparities research but require further validation across intersectional groups and languages. In addition, the proposal to remove attributions is controversial, and no direct comparison has ever been conducted.ObjectiveThis study aims to cognitively and psychometrically evaluate the InDI in English and Spanish and determine whether attributions should be included.MethodsThe study will draw on a preliminary validation data set and three original sequentially collected sources of data: qualitative cognitive interviews in English and Spanish with a sample purposively recruited across intersecting social status and position (gender, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, age, and nativity); a Spanish quantitative survey (n=500; 250/500, 50% sexual and gender minorities); and an English quantitative survey (n=3000), with quota sampling by race and ethnicity (Black, Latino/a/x, and White), sexual or gender minority status, and gender.ResultsThe study was funded by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities in May 2021, and data collection began in July 2021.ConclusionsThe key deliverables of the study will be bilingual measures of anticipated, day-to-day, and major discrimination validated for multiple health disparity populations using qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/30987.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Biomedical and ethnographic studies among indigenous people are common practice in health and geographical research. Prior health research misconduct has been documented, particularly when obtaining genetic material. The objective of this study was to crossmatch previously published data with the perceptions of the Waorani peoples about the trading of their genetic material and other biological samples. METHODS:We conducted a mixed methods study design using a tailored 15-item questionnaire in 72 participants and in-depth interviews in 55 participants belonging to 20 Waorani communities about their experiences and perceptions of participating in biomedical research projects. Additionally, we conducted a systematic review of the literature in order to crossmatch the published results of studies stating the approval of an ethics committee and individual consent within their work. RESULTS:A total of 40 men (60%) and 32 women (40%), with a mean age of 57?±?15 years agreed to be interviewed for inclusion. Five main categories around the violation of good clinical practices were identified, concerning the obtention of blood samples from a recently contacted Waorani native community within the Amazonian region of Ecuador. These themes are related to the lack of adequate communication between community members and researchers as well as the voluntariness to participate in health research. Additionally, over 40 years, a total of 38 manuscripts related to the use of biological samples in Waorani indigenous people were published. The majority of the studies (68%) did not state within their article obtaining research ethics board approval, and 71% did not report obtaining the informed consent of the participants prior to the execution of the project. CONCLUSION:Clinical Research on the Waorani community in the Ecuadorian Amazon basin has been performed on several occasions. Unfortunately, the majority of these projects did not follow the appropriate ethical and professional standards in either reporting the results or fulfilling them. The results of our investigation suggest that biological material, including genetic material, has been used by researchers globally, with some omitting the minimum information required to guarantee transparency and good clinical practices. We highlight the importance of stating ethics within research to avoid breaches in research transparency.

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:IntroductionTransition from child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) to community or adult mental health services (AMHS) is a highly problematic health systems hurdle, especially for transition-aged youth. A planned and purposeful transition process is often non-existent or experienced negatively by youth and their caregivers. Stakeholders, including youth and their caregivers, have demanded interventions to support more effective transitions, such a transition navigator. The transition navigator model uses a navigator to facilitate complex transitions from acute care CAMHS to community or AMHS. However, despite the widespread implementation of this model, there has been no evaluation of the programme, hindering its scalability. This paper describes the study protocol of the Navigator Evaluation Advancing Transitions study that aims to collaborate with patients, caregivers and clinicians in the evaluation of the navigator model.Methods and analysisA pre and post mixed-method study will be conducted, using the Triple Aim Framework, to evaluate the navigator model. We will recruit participants from one large tertiary and two community hospitals in Toronto, Canada. For the quantitative portion of the study, we will recruit a sample of 45 youth (15 at each site), aged 16-18, and their caregivers at baseline (referral to navigator) (T1) and 6 months (T2). Youth and caregiver participants will complete a set of standardised measures to assess mental health, service utilisation, and satisfaction outcomes. For the qualitative portion of the study, semistructured interviews will be conducted at 6 months (T2) with youth, their caregivers and clinicians to better understand their experience and satisfaction with the model.Ethics and disseminationResearch Ethics Board (REB) approval has been obtained from the lead research sites, the University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children. The results of the study will be reported in peer-reviewed publications, webinars and conferences and to all relevant stakeholders.

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:BackgroundMany interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts.MethodsWe used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts.ResultsThe CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct.ConclusionThe CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.