Improving Conduct and Reporting of Narrative Synthesis of Quantitative Data (ICONS-Quant): protocol for a mixed methods study to develop a reporting guideline.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Campbell M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5855342 | biostudies-other | 2018
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
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.
| S-EPMC3419885 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The living systematic review (LSR) is an emerging approach for improved evidence synthesis that uses continual updating to include relevant new evidence as soon as it is published. The objectives of this study are to: 1) assess the methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews using a living study approach; and 2) describe the life cycle of living systematic reviews, i.e., describe the changes over time to their methods and findings. Methods: For objective 1, we will begin by conducting a cross-sectional survey and then update its findings every 6 months by including newly published LSRs. For objective 2, we will conduct a prospective longitudinal follow-up of the cohort of included LSRs. To identify LSRs, we will continually search the following electronic databases: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane library. We will also contact groups conducting LSRs to identify eligible studies that we might have missed. We will follow the standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data abstraction. For each LSR update, we will abstract information on the following: 1) general characteristics, 2) systematic review methodology, 3) living approach methodology, 4) results, and 5) editorial and publication processes. We will update the findings of both the surveys and the longitudinal follow-up of included LSRs every 6 months. In addition, we will identify articles addressing LSR methods to be included in an 'LSR methods repository'. Conclusion: The proposed living methodological survey will allow us to monitor how the methods of conduct, and reporting as well as the findings of LSRs change over time. Ultimately this should help with ensuring the quality and transparency of LSRs.
| S-EPMC6556985 | biostudies-literature
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:ObjectiveTo develop and validate a difficult intravenous access risk assessment and escalation pathway, to increase first time intravenous insertion success in paediatrics.MethodsMixed methods underpinned by literature and co-production principles. Iterative development of the instrument was informed through semi-structured interviews and stakeholder workshops. The instrument includes a risk assessment, inserter skill self-assessment, and escalation pathways. Reproducibility, reliability, and acceptability were evaluated in a prospective cohort study at a quaternary paediatric hospital in Australia.ResultsInterview data (three parents, nine clinicians) uncovered two themes: i) Recognition of children with DIVA and subsequent escalation is ad hoc and problematic; and ii) Resources and training impact inserter confidence and ability. Three workshops were delivered at monthly intervals (February-April 2020) involving 21 stakeholders culminating in the co-production of the "DIVA Key". The DIVA Key was evaluated between May-December 2020 in 78 children; 156 clinicians. Seventy-eight paired assessments were undertaken with substantial agreement (concordance range = 81.5 to 83.0%) between the assessors. Interrater reliability of the DIVA risk assessment was moderate (kappa = 0.71, 95% CI 0.63-0.80). The DIVA Key predicted multiple insertion attempts for red (high risk) DIVA classification (relative risk ratio 5.7, 95% CI 1.2-27.1; reference low risk). Consumer and clinician satisfaction with DIVA Key was high (median (IQR) = 10 [8-10]; 8 [8-10 respectively).ConclusionThe DIVA Key is a straightforward, reliable instrument with inbuilt escalation pathway to support the identification of children with difficult intravenous access.
| S-EPMC8851754 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStructured, systematic methods to formulate consensus recommendations, such as the Delphi process or nominal group technique, among others, provide the opportunity to harness the knowledge of experts to support clinical decision making in areas of uncertainty. They are widely used in biomedical research, in particular where disease characteristics or resource limitations mean that high-quality evidence generation is difficult. However, poor reporting of methods used to reach a consensus - for example, not clearly explaining the definition of consensus, or not stating how consensus group panellists were selected - can potentially undermine confidence in this type of research and hinder reproducibility. Our objective is therefore to systematically develop a reporting guideline to help the biomedical research and clinical practice community describe the methods or techniques used to reach consensus in a complete, transparent, and consistent manner.MethodsThe ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) project will take place in five stages and follow the EQUATOR Network guidance for the development of reporting guidelines. In Stage 1, a multidisciplinary Steering Committee has been established to lead and coordinate the guideline development process. In Stage 2, a systematic literature review will identify evidence on the quality of the reporting of consensus methodology, to obtain potential items for a reporting checklist. In Stage 3, Delphi methodology will be used to reach consensus regarding the checklist items, first among the Steering Committee, and then among a broader Delphi panel comprising participants with a range of expertise, including patient representatives. In Stage 4, the reporting guideline will be finalised in a consensus meeting, along with the production of an Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document. In Stage 5, we plan to publish the reporting guideline and E&E document in open-access journals, supported by presentations at appropriate events. Dissemination of the reporting guideline, including a website linked to social media channels, is crucial for the document to be implemented in practice.DiscussionThe ACCORD reporting guideline will provide a set of minimum items that should be reported about methods used to achieve consensus, including approaches ranging from simple unstructured opinion gatherings to highly structured processes.
| S-EPMC9171734 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAddressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension.MethodsWe assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels.DiscussionAchieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.
| S-EPMC10060140 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis paper describes the development of a tool for assessing organisational readiness to conduct knowledge translation (KT) among academic institutions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).DesignA literature review and stakeholder consultation process were conducted to identify constructs relevant for assessing KT readiness in LMICs. These were face-validated with LMIC stakeholders and organised into a Likert-scale questionnaire.ParticipantsThe questionnaire was distributed to researchers based at six LMIC academic institutions and members of a global knowledge-to-action thematic working group.Outcome measuresAn exploratory factor analysis was used to identify underlying dimensions for assessing institutional readiness to conduct KT.Results111 respondents with varied KT experiences from 10 LMICs were included in the analysis. We selected 5 factors and 23 items, with factor loadings from 0.40 to 0.77. These factors include (1) institutional climate, (2) organisation change efficacy, (3) prioritisation and cosmopolitanism, (4) self-efficacy, and (5) financial resources. These factors accounted for 69% of the total variance, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.78, 0.73, 0.62, 0.68 and 0.52, respectively.ConclusionsThis study identifies a tool for assessing readiness of LMIC academic institutions to conduct KT and unique opportunities for building capacity. The organisational focus of these factors underscores the need for strategies that address organisational systems and structures in addition to individual skills. Future research will be conducted to understand determinants of these factors and develop a comprehensive set of capacity building strategies responsive to academic institutions in LMICs.
| S-EPMC8506882 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHospitalized newborns experience a high frequency of painful procedures. Undertreated pain has a series of adverse physical and psychosocial effects on newborns. Guidelines successfully applied in clinical practice can effectively improve pain management in NICUs and reduce the incidence of pain. Neonatal care providers in China are in urgent need of a high-quality, evidence-based guideline for the treatment and management of neonatal pain. The National Clinical Research Center for Child Health and Disorders is leading the development of a standard guideline for neonatal pain management suitable for the medical environment in China providing empirical support and safety guarantees for clinical practice. The WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation will provide technical support and guidance. The purpose of this paper is to outline the detailed methodology and technical route of guideline development.MethodsWe will follow the WHO principles and methods for the formulation of standard guidelines. The critical steps for developing the guideline are as follows: (I) definition of the guideline Scope; (II) establishment of guideline working groups; (III) selection of the clinical questions; (IV) performance of systematic reviews; (V) grading the quality of the body of evidence; and (VI) formulating recommendations and reaching consensus.DiscussionThis protocol would ensure that the process of guideline development is normative, scientific, and transparent. The standard guideline for neonatal pain management based on the available high-quality evidence and tailored to the Chinese health care system will help neonatal caregivers in NICUs effectively manage neonatal pain.Guideline registrationThe guideline was registered at the International Practice Guidelines Registry Platform. The registration No. is IPGRP-2021CN044.
| S-EPMC8261575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHIV drug resistance is a global health problem that limits the effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy. Adequate surveillance of HIV drug resistance is challenged by heterogenous and inadequate data reporting, which compromises the accuracy, interpretation, and usability of prevalence estimates. Previous research has found that the quality of reporting in studies of HIV drug resistance prevalence is low, and thus better guidance is needed to ensure complete and uniform reporting.ObjectiveThis paper contributes to the process of developing reporting guidelines for prevalence studies of HIV drug resistance by reporting the methodology used in creating a reporting item checklist and generating key insights on items that are important to report.MethodsWe will conduct a sequential explanatory mixed methods study among authors and users of studies of HIV drug resistance. The two-phase design will include a cross-sectional electronic survey (quantitative phase) followed by a focus group discussion (qualitative phase). Survey participants will rate the essentiality of various reporting items. This data will be analyzed using content validity ratios to determine the items that will be retained for focus group discussions. Participants in these discussions will revise the items and any additionally suggested items and settle on a complete reporting item checklist. We will also conduct a thematic analysis of the group discussions to identify emergent themes regarding the agreement process.ResultsAs of November 2021, data collection for both phases of the study is complete. In July 2021, 51 participants had provided informed consent and completed the electronic survey. In October 2021, focus group discussions were held. Nine participants in total participated in two virtual focus group discussions. As of May 2022, data are being analyzed.ConclusionsThis study supports the development of a reporting checklist for studies of HIV drug resistance by achieving agreement among experts on what items should be reported in these studies. The results of this work will be refined and elaborated on by a writing committee of HIV drug resistance experts and external reviewers to develop finalized reporting guidelines.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/35969.
| S-EPMC9143765 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the commonest arrhythmias observed in general practice. The thromboembolic complications of AF include transient ischemic attack, stroke, and pulmonary embolism. Early recognition of AF can lead to early intervention with managing the risks of these complications.ObjectiveThe primary aim of this study is to investigate if patients are managed in general practice according to current national guidelines. In addition, the study will evaluate the impact of direct oral anticoagulant use with respect to AF complications in a real-world dataset. The secondary aims of the study are to develop a dashboard that will allow monitoring the management of AF in general practice and evaluate the usability of the dashboard.MethodsThe study was conducted in 2 phases. The initial phase was a quantitative analysis of routinely collected primary care data from the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Center (RCGP RSC) sentinel network database. AF cases from 2009 to 2019 were identified. The study investigated the impact of the use of anticoagulants on complications of AF over this time period. We used this dataset to examine how AF was managed in primary care during the last decade. The second phase involved development of an online dashboard for monitoring management of AF in general practice. We conducted a usability evaluation for the dashboard to identify usability issues and performed enhancements to improve usability.ResultsWe received funding for both phases in January 2019 and received approval from the RCGP RSC research committee in March 2019. We completed data extraction for phase 1 in May 2019 and completed analysis in December 2019. We completed building the AF dashboard in May 2019. We started recruiting participants for phase 1 in May 2019 and concluded data collection in July 2019. We completed data analysis for phase 2 in October 2019. The results are expected to be published in the second half of 2020. As of October 2020, the publications reporting the results are under review.ConclusionsResults of this study will provide an insight into the current trends in management of AF using real-world data from the Oxford RCGP RSC database. We anticipate that the outcomes of this study will be used to guide the development and implementation of an audit-based intervention tool to assist practitioners in identifying and managing AF in primary care.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR1-10.2196/21259.
| S-EPMC7683254 | biostudies-literature