Dataset Information

A scoping review of Q-methodology in healthcare research.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Q-methodology is an approach to studying complex issues of human 'subjectivity'. Although this approach was developed in the early twentieth century, the value of Q-methodology in healthcare was not recognised until relatively recently. The aim of this review was to scope the empirical healthcare literature to examine the extent to which Q-methodology has been utilised in healthcare over time, including how it has been used and for what purposes.

Methods

A search of three electronic databases (Scopus, EBSCO-CINAHL Complete, Medline) was conducted. No date restriction was applied. A title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review, was conducted by a team of five reviewers. Included articles were English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles that used Q-methodology (both Q-sorting and inverted factor analysis) in healthcare settings. The following data items were extracted into a purpose-designed Excel spreadsheet: study details (e.g., setting, country, year), reasons for using Q-methodology, healthcare topic area, participants (type and number), materials (e.g., ranking anchors and Q-set), methods (e.g., development of the Q-set, analysis), study results, and study implications. Data synthesis was descriptive in nature and involved frequency counting, open coding and the organisation by data items.

Results

Of the 2,302 articles identified by the search, 289 studies were included in this review. We found evidence of increased use of Q-methodology in healthcare, particularly over the last 5 years. However, this research remains diffuse, spread across a large number of journals and topic areas. In a number of studies, we identified limitations in the reporting of methods, such as insufficient information on how authors derived their Q-set, what types of analyses they performed, and the amount of variance explained.

Conclusions

Although Q-methodology is increasingly being adopted in healthcare research, it still appears to be relatively novel. This review highlight commonalities in how the method has been used, areas of application, and the potential value of the approach. To facilitate reporting of Q-methodological studies, we present a checklist of details that should be included for publication.

SUBMITTER: Churruca K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8215808 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has presented many multi-faceted challenges to the maintenance of service quality and safety, highlighting the need for resilient and responsive healthcare systems more than ever before. This review examined empirical investigations of Resilient Health Care (RHC) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim to: identify key areas of research; synthesise findings on capacities that develop RHC across system levels (micro, meso, macro); and identify reported adverse consequences of the effort of maintaining system performance on system agents (healthcare workers, patients).MethodsThree academic databases were searched (Medline, EMBASE, Scopus) from 1st January 2020 to 30th August 2022 using keywords pertaining to: systems resilience and related concepts; healthcare and healthcare settings; and COVID-19. Capacities that developed and enhanced systems resilience were synthesised using a hybrid inductive-deductive thematic analysis.ResultsFifty publications were included in this review. Consistent with previous research, studies from high-income countries and the use of qualitative methods within the context of hospitals, dominated the included studies. However, promising developments have been made, with an emergence of studies conducted at the macro-system level, including the development of quantitative tools and indicator-based modelling approaches, and the increased involvement of low- and middle-income countries in research (LMIC). Concordant with previous research, eight key resilience capacities were identified that can support, develop or enhance resilient performance, namely: structure, alignment, coordination, learning, involvement, risk awareness, leadership, and communication. The need for healthcare workers to constantly learn and make adaptations, however, had potentially adverse physical and emotional consequences for healthcare workers, in addition to adverse effects on routine patient care.ConclusionsThis review identified an upsurge in new empirical studies on health system resilience associated with COVID-19. The pandemic provided a unique opportunity to examine RHC in practice, and uncovered emerging new evidence on RHC theory and system factors that contribute to resilient performance at micro, meso and macro levels. These findings will enable leaders and other stakeholders to strengthen health system resilience when responding to future challenges and unexpected events.

Project description:Background: Research on disparities in traumatic injury has not been well characterized, limiting understanding of gaps in research and development of successful interventions. We conducted a scoping review to identify and synthesize research on disparities in intentional and unintentional traumatic injuries. Methods: The review was guided by PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL and systematic reviews from 2007 to 2017 were searched. Eligible articles were peer reviewed; conducted in the United States; and reported on clearly defined physical trauma and disparity, defined by Cochrane PROGRESS-Plus criteria. One reviewer assessed article titles and a second reviewer validated the inclusion with a random sample. Abstract and full-text review by two reviewers determined final inclusion. Results: Of 7382 unique articles screened, 653 articles were included; inter-rater agreement was high (K=0.995). Studies reported on disparities in the acute hospital setting (104) or postacute/rehabilitation (86), with fewer focused on prevention (57) and policy development (6). Research methods used were quantitative (593) with 25 intervention studies, qualitative (45), qualitative/quantitative (7), and community-based participatory research (8). Age ranges of included studies were all ages (124), adults (318), pediatric/youth/adolescents (172), and older adults (40). Racial disparities were most commonly measured (439 studies); 38 created a white/nonwhite binary. Other commonly measured disparities were place of residence (122), insurance (111 studies), gender (89), age (75), and socioeconomic status measures (61). Disparities were noted in all of the categories. Studies commonly aggregated all types of traumatic injuries (129) or all types of violence (105). Conclusions: The extant injury literature lacks research on prevention and policy to address disparities. Many studies aggregated types of trauma and patient groups, preventing an understanding of distinctions between groups and potential interventions. Intervention and community-based research strategies were limited. Future research can better specify measurement of understudied equity categories, trauma types and intent, and racial groups.

Project description:BackgroundOver the past decades, there has been a growing international interest in user involvement in healthcare research. However, evidence on the management and impact of patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research remains limited.ObjectiveThe aim was to explore and delineate the current state, practice, and impact of patient and public involvement in healthcare research across different areas of healthcare and patient populations in the Nordic countries.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review using nine scientific databases and gray literature from 1992-2023. Sources were categorized as empirical or non-empirical. We used the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public Short Form 2 checklist for reporting of patient and public involvement in healthcare research and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.ResultsA total of 56 publications were included, consisting of 39 empirical and 17 non-empirical sources. Gray literature varied among countries and institutions encompassing different types of documents. We found an increase in the number of publications on patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research. This was evidenced by the growing number of references and institutional initiatives intended at involving the public, indicating the increasing emphasis on patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research. The terminology used to describe patient and public involvement varied over time. However, there has been a gradual narrowing down of terms as the concept of PPI has become more integrated into research practices, particularly with the involvement of funding agencies.ConclusionThe utilization of patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research has substantially increased, proliferated, and gained widespread acceptance across diverse healthcare domains. The variety of approaches challenged our scoping review in terms of systematic description and impact. Patient and public involvement was applied in one or more research stages using different methodologies and terms. International agreement on terms and definitions is needed for reliable interpretation of the use of patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research.

Project description:BackgroundRacism constitutes a barrier towards achieving equitable healthcare as documented in research showing unequal processes of delivering, accessing, and receiving healthcare across countries and healthcare indicators. This review summarizes studies examining how racism is discussed and produced in the process of delivering, accessing and receiving healthcare across various national contexts.MethodThe PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews were followed and databases were searched for peer reviewed empirical articles in English across national contexts. No starting date limitation was applied for this review. The end date was December 1, 2020. The review scoped 213 articles. The results were summarized, coded and thematically categorized in regards to the aim.ResultsThe review yielded the following categories: healthcare users' experiences of racism in healthcare; healthcare staff's experiences of racism; healthcare staff's racial attitudes and beliefs; effects of racism in healthcare on various treatment choices; healthcare staff's reflections on racism in healthcare and; antiracist training in healthcare. Racialized minorities experience inadequate healthcare and being dismissed in healthcare interactions. Experiences of racism are associated with lack of trust and delay in seeking healthcare. Racialized minority healthcare staff experience racism in their workplace from healthcare users and colleagues and lack of organizational support in managing racism. Research on healthcare staff's racial attitudes and beliefs demonstrate a range of negative stereotypes regarding racialized minority healthcare users who are viewed as difficult. Research on implicit racial bias illustrates that healthcare staff exhibit racial bias in favor of majority group. Healthcare staff's racial bias may influence medical decisions negatively. Studies examining healthcare staff's reflections on racism and antiracist training show that healthcare staff tend to construct healthcare as impartial and that healthcare staff do not readily discuss racism in their workplace.ConclusionsThe USA dominates the research. It is imperative that research covers other geo-political contexts. Research on racism in healthcare is mainly descriptive, atheoretical, uses racial categories uncritically and tends to ignore racialization processes making it difficult to conceptualize racism. Sociological research on racism could inform research on racism as it theoretically explains racism's structural embeddedness, which could aid in tackling racism to provide good quality care.