Risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research: a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To examine the risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research.Methods
We performed a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review of chiropractic mixed methods studies. We assessed risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) and used generalized estimating equations to explore factors associated with risk of bias.Results
Among 55 eligible studies, a mean of 62% (6.8 [2.3]/11) of MMAT items were fulfilled. In our adjusted analysis, studies published since 2010 versus pre-2010 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39 to 3.68) and those published in journals with an impact factor versus no impact factor (aOR = 2.21; 95% CI, 1.33 to 3.68) were associated with lower risk of bias.Conclusion
Our findings suggest opportunities for improvement in the quality of conduct among published chiropractic mixed methods studies. Author compliance with the MMAT criteria may reduce methodological bias in future mixed methods research.
SUBMITTER: Emary PC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9103633 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research: a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review.
Emary Peter C PC Stuber Kent J KJ Mbuagbaw Lawrence L Oremus Mark M Nolet Paul S PS Nash Jennifer V JV Bauman Craig A CA Ciraco Carla C Couban Rachel J RJ Busse Jason W JW
The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association 20220401 1
<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review of chiropractic mixed methods studies. We assessed risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) and used generalized estimating equations to explore factors associated with risk of bias.<h4>Results</h4>Among 55 eligible studies, a mean of 62% (6.8 [2.3]/11) of MMAT items were fulfilled. In our adjusted analysis, studi ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMixed methods designs are increasingly used in health care research to enrich findings. However, little is known about the frequency of use of this methodology in chiropractic research, or the quality of reporting among chiropractic studies using mixed methods.ObjectiveTo quantify the use and quality of mixed methods in chiropractic research, and explore the association of study characteristics (e.g., authorship, expertise, journal impact factor, country and year of publication) with reporting quality.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature to identify all chiropractic mixed methods studies published from inception of each database to December 31, 2020. Articles reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods, or mixed qualitative methods, will be included. Pairs of reviewers will perform article screening, data extraction, risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), and appraisal of reporting quality using the Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) guideline. We will explore the correlation between GRAMMS and MMAT scores, and construct generalized estimating equations to explore factors associated with reporting quality.DiscussionThis will be the first methodological review to examine the reporting quality of published mixed methods studies involving chiropractic research. The results of our review will inform opportunities to improve reporting in chiropractic mixed methods studies. Our results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented publicly at conferences and as part of a doctoral thesis.
| S-EPMC8442283 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDespite the rapidly declining number of physician-investigators, there is no consistent structure within medical education so far for involving medical students in research.ObjectiveTo conduct an integrated mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies about medical students' participation in research, and to evaluate the evidence in order to guide policy decision-making regarding this issue.Evidence reviewWe followed the PRISMA statement guidelines during the preparation of this review and meta-analysis. We searched various databases as well as the bibliographies of the included studies between March 2012 and September 2013. We identified all relevant quantitative and qualitative studies assessing the effect of medical student participation in research, without restrictions regarding study design or publication date. Prespecified outcome-specific quality criteria were used to judge the admission of each quantitative outcome into the meta-analysis. Initial screening of titles and abstracts resulted in the retrieval of 256 articles for full-text assessment. Eventually, 79 articles were included in our study, including eight qualitative studies. An integrated approach was used to combine quantitative and qualitative studies into a single synthesis. Once all included studies were identified, a data-driven thematic analysis was performed.Findings and conclusionsMedical student participation in research is associated with improved short- and long- term scientific productivity, more informed career choices and improved knowledge about-, interest in- and attitudes towards research. Financial worries, gender, having a higher degree (MSc or PhD) before matriculation and perceived competitiveness of the residency of choice are among the factors that affect the engagement of medical students in research and/or their scientific productivity. Intercalated BSc degrees, mandatory graduation theses and curricular research components may help in standardizing research education during medical school.
| S-EPMC4472353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe construct of working alliance has been used to operationalise the patient-clinician relationship. Research evidence from the rehabilitation literature has established an association between the construct and several patient outcomes. The aim of this systematic literature review was to study working alliance in the chiropractic discipline.MethodThis review followed a mixed method systematic review methodology: EBSCO (The Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), EBSCO (MEDLINE), EBSCO PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Chiro index, and grey literature were searched for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies on 17th March 2021. Qualitative appraisal was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, version 2018. The qualitative component was synthesised via thematic synthesis and explored patients' and chiropractors' perceptions of the nature and role of working alliance. The quantitative component was synthesised via narrative synthesis to examine how the construct has been measured in research and what its effect on clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction is. The findings were integrated in the discussion section.ResultsThirty studies were included. The qualitative component found that both patients and chiropractors consider working alliance as a key factor in the treatment journey. The findings illustrated that the construct includes the bond between a patient and a chiropractor which is underpinned by trust and attentiveness to patients' needs, values and preferences. Qualitative data also suggested that strong working alliance has the potential to improve patients' adherence to treatment and that it is characterised by ongoing negotiation of expectations about the goals of care and the tasks involved in the treatment plan. The quantitative component highlighted that even though working alliance is relevant to the chiropractic discipline, very few studies have quantitatively measured the construct and its effect.ConclusionThe findings of this review emphasise the subjective importance of working alliance in the chiropractic clinical encounter. However, there were not enough homogenous studies measuring the effect of working alliance on clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction to conduct a meta-analysis. Future research should focus on evaluating potential direct and mediated effects on patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC9438171 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch enables a profession to establish its cultural authority, validate its professional roles and ensure ongoing improvement in the quality of its academic programming. Despite the clear importance of research, a mature research culture has eluded the chiropractic profession. A fostering institutional culture that enables, values, and supports research activity is essential to building research capacity. Our study aimed to collect information about the existing research capacity and culture at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC) and explore the views, attitudes and experiences of faculty members regarding research.MethodsWe conducted a sequential explanatory mixed methods study with quantitative priority between April and July, 2023. Quantitative data were collected using the Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) tool. Survey results guided the qualitative data collected from four faculty focus groups with varying levels of research experience. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics by domain and stratified by research education and workload. The qualitative data were thematically analyzed and then integrated with the quantitative results to provide deeper meaning to the results.ResultsThe faculty survey response rate was 42% (59/144). Attributes at the organization or department level were consistently rated as either moderate or high; however, research skills at an individual level were more variable and influenced by factors such as research workload and highest research-related academic qualification. Qualitative focus group data were categorized under four themes: institutional factors, resource allocation, career pathways and personal factors. Lower scores for survey items related to mentorship, research planning and ensuring faculty research career pathways, as well as the identified workload and time-related barriers (e.g., other work roles and desire for work/life balance) for engaging in research were supported by each of the four themes. Research motivators included keeping the brain stimulated, developing skills and increasing job satisfaction.ConclusionThe quantitative and qualitative information in this study provides a baseline evaluation for RCC and identifies key factors impacting RCC at the CMCC. This information is critical for planning, developing, implementing, and evaluating future interventions to enhance research capacity. Ultimately, these efforts are aimed at maturing the research culture of the chiropractic profession.
| S-EPMC11580544 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient safety research has lagged within academic settings, including chiropractic teaching institutions. To develop a robust patient safety culture, the Institute of Medicine emphasized the need for employee's attitudes to be understanding and positive. To initiate the assessment of the current culture and future needs, this study evaluated patient safety attitudes among chiropractic teaching clinic stakeholders (supervising clinicians, student interns, and administrative staff) and compared their standardized survey scores to established medical survey databases.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, mixed methods survey design with quantitative analytic priority. Chiropractic interns, clinical faculty, and clinic staff of 5 international chiropractic educational programs completed a modified version of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety Culture for Medical Offices Survey with open-ended comment fields between 2014 and 2016. Composite means of positive responses were calculated and compared to patient safety, quality of care, and overall self-ratings benchmarks from Canadian providers and academic settings in the AHRQ database. Qualitative responses were thematically categorized for a convergent analysis of quantitative results for the chiropractic sample.ResultsChiropractic survey response rate was 45.3% (n = 645). Quantitative survey results indicated moderate scores and ranges (57-85%) on all patient safety dimensions for the chiropractic samples. Academic medicine and chiropractic providers' benchmarks scored higher positive responses than chiropractic teaching clinics on most quantitative dimensions, except for work pressure/pace. Teamwork, organizational learning, and patient tracking/follow-up were the most positively endorsed quantitative dimensions, with communication, staff training, office standardization, and leadership support considered areas for improvement in both settings. Qualitative responses for the chiropractic clinics identified a need for open communication; additional staff training and student involvement in creating safety cultures; standardization of office processes including information exchange, scheduling, and equipment maintenance; and leadership support that focused on decreasing work pressure/pace and setting safety priorities.ConclusionAs the first report of patient safety attitudes from stakeholders in chiropractic teaching clinics, specific areas of improvement were identified. Chiropractic teaching programs might consider incorporating these and related patient safety concepts into their formal curricula. Mixed methods approach offers teaching clinics opportunities to assess stakeholders' insights and enhance safe delivery of chiropractic care.
| S-EPMC7500017 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe increasing emphasis to share patient data from clinical research has resulted in substantial investments in data repositories and infrastructure. However, it is unclear how shared data are used and whether anticipated benefits are being realized.ObjectiveThe purpose of our study is to examine the current utilization of shared clinical research data sets and assess the effects on both scientific research and public health outcomes. Additionally, the study seeks to identify the factors that hinder or facilitate the ethical and efficient use of existing data based on the perspectives of data users.MethodsThe study will utilize a mixed methods design, incorporating a cross-sectional survey and in-depth interviews. The survey will involve at least 400 clinical researchers, while the in-depth interviews will include 20 to 40 participants who have utilized data from repositories or institutional data access committees. The survey will target a global sample, while the in-depth interviews will focus on individuals who have used data collected from low- and middle-income countries. Quantitative data will be summarized by using descriptive statistics, while multivariable analyses will be used to assess the relationships between variables. Qualitative data will be analyzed through thematic analysis, and the findings will be reported in accordance with the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) guidelines. The study received ethical approval from the Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee in 2020 (reference number: 568-20).ResultsThe results of the analysis, including both quantitative data and qualitative data, will be available in 2023.ConclusionsThe outcomes of our study will offer crucial understanding into the current status of data reuse in clinical research, serving as a basis for guiding future endeavors to enhance the utilization of shared data for the betterment of public health outcomes and for scientific progress.Trial registrationThai Clinical Trials Registry TCTR20210301006; https://tinyurl.com/2p9atzhr.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/44875.
| S-EPMC10028503 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Strategies to identify and mitigate publication bias and outcome reporting bias are frequently adopted in systematic reviews of clinical interventions but it is not clear how often these are applied in systematic reviews relating to quantitative health services and delivery research (HSDR). We examined whether these biases are mentioned and/or otherwise assessed in HSDR systematic reviews, and evaluated associating factors to inform future practice. We randomly selected 200 quantitative HSDR systematic reviews published in the English language from 2007-2017 from the Health Systems Evidence database (www.healthsystemsevidence.org). We extracted data on factors that may influence whether or not authors mention and/or assess publication bias or outcome reporting bias. We found that 43% (n = 85) of the reviews mentioned publication bias and 10% (n = 19) formally assessed it. Outcome reporting bias was mentioned and assessed in 17% (n = 34) of all the systematic reviews. Insufficient number of studies, heterogeneity and lack of pre-registered protocols were the most commonly reported impediments to assessing the biases. In multivariable logistic regression models, both mentioning and formal assessment of publication bias were associated with: inclusion of a meta-analysis; being a review of intervention rather than association studies; higher journal impact factor, and; reporting the use of systematic review guidelines. Assessment of outcome reporting bias was associated with: being an intervention review; authors reporting the use of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE), and; inclusion of only controlled trials. Publication bias and outcome reporting bias are infrequently assessed in HSDR systematic reviews. This may reflect the inherent heterogeneity of HSDR evidence and different methodological approaches to synthesising the evidence, lack of awareness of such biases, limits of current tools and lack of pre-registered study protocols for assessing such biases. Strategies to help raise awareness of the biases, and methods to minimise their occurrence and mitigate their impacts on HSDR systematic reviews, are needed.
| S-EPMC6992172 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Over the past few years, a large number of prediction models have been published, often of poor methodological quality. Seemingly objective and straightforward, prediction models provide a risk estimate for the outcome of interest, usually based on readily available clinical information. Yet, using models of substandard methodological rigour, especially without external validation, may result in incorrect risk estimates and consequently misclassification. To assess and combat bias in prediction research the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST) was published in 2019. This risk of bias (ROB) tool includes four domains and 20 signalling questions highlighting methodological flaws, and provides guidance in assessing the applicability of the model. In this paper, the PROBAST will be discussed, along with an in-depth review of two commonly encountered pitfalls in prediction modelling that may induce bias: overfitting and composite endpoints. We illustrate the prevalence of potential bias in prediction models with a meta-review of 50 systematic reviews that used the PROBAST to appraise their included studies, thus including 1510 different studies on 2104 prediction models. All domains showed an unclear or high ROB; these results were markedly stable over time, highlighting the urgent need for attention on bias in prediction research. This article aims to do just that by providing (1) the clinician with tools to evaluate the (methodological) quality of a clinical prediction model, (2) the researcher working on a review with methods to appraise the included models, and (3) the researcher developing a model with suggestions to improve model quality.
| S-EPMC9291738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe world has high hopes of vaccination against COVID-19 to protect the population, boost economies and return to normal life. Vaccination programmes are being rolled out in high income countries, but the pandemic continues to progress in many low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) despite implementation of strict hygiene measures. We aim to present a comprehensive research protocol that will generate epidemiological, sociological and anthropological data about the COVID-19 epidemic in Burkina Faso, a landlocked country in West Africa with scarce resources.MethodsWe will perform a multidisciplinary research using mixed methods in the two main cities in Burkina Faso (Ouagadougou and Bobo-Dioulasso). Data will be collected in the general population and in COVID-19 patients, caregivers and health care professionals in reference care centers: (i) to determine cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Burkinabe population using blood samples collected from randomly selected households according to the WHO-recommended protocol; (ii) develop a score to predict severe complications of COVID-19 in persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 using retrospective and prospective data; (iii) perform semi-structured interviews and direct observation on site, to describe and analyze the healthcare pathways and experiences of patients with COVID-19 attending reference care centers, and to identify the perceptions, acceptability and application of preventive strategies among the population.DiscussionThis study will generate comprehensive data that will contribute to improving COVID-19 response strategies in Burkina Faso. The lessons learned from the management of this epidemic may serve as examples to the country authorities to better design preventive strategies in the case of future epidemics or pandemics. The protocol was approved by the Ministry for Health (N° 2020-00952/MS/CAB/INSP/CM) and the Health Research Ethics Committee in Burkina Faso (N° 2020-8-140).
| S-EPMC8414025 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDigital health interventions have become increasingly popular in recent years, expanding the possibilities for treatment for various patient groups. In clinical research, while the design of the intervention receives close attention, challenges with research participant engagement and retention persist. This may be partially due to the use of digital health platforms, which may lack adequacy for participants.ObjectiveThis systematic literature review aims to investigate the relationship between digital health platforms and participant engagement and retention in clinical research. It will map and analyze key definitions of engagement and retention, as well as identify design characteristics that influence them.MethodsWe will carry out a mixed methods systematic literature review, analyzing qualitative and quantitative studies. The search strategy includes the electronic databases PubMed, IEEE Xplore, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, APA PsycINFO, and the ACM Digital Library. The review will encompass studies published between January 2018 and June 2024. Criteria for inclusion will be the presence of digital health care interventions conducted through digital health platforms like websites, web and mobile apps used by patients, and informal caregivers as research participants. The main outcome will be a narrative analysis with key findings on the definitions of participant engagement and retention and critical factors that affect them. Quality assessment and appraisal will be done through the Mixed-Methods Assessment Tool. Data analysis and synthesis will follow the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 flow diagram. Quantitative data will be qualified and integrated into qualitative data, which will be analyzed using thematic analysis and synthesis.ResultsThe study expects to map and summarize critical definitions of participant engagement and retention, and the characteristics of digital health platforms that influence them. The systematic review is expected to be completed in June 2025.ConclusionsThis systematic review will contribute to the growing discussion on how the design of digital health intervention platforms can promote participant engagement and retention in clinical research.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42024561650; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=561650.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/65099.
| S-EPMC11748419 | biostudies-literature