Qualitative research publication rates in top-ranked nursing journals: 2002-2011.

BACKGROUND: Journal publication is the traditional means of disseminating research. Few top-ranked general medical and health services and policy research journals publish qualitative research. OBJECTIVES: This study examined qualitative research publication rates in top-ranked nursing journals with varying characteristics (general vs. specialty focus, number of issues per year) and compared publication rates with those previously reported for journals in related fields. METHODS: A bibliometric approach was used to identify and quantify qualitative articles published in 10 top-ranked nursing journals from 2002 to 2011. RESULTS: The percentage of qualitative empirical studies varied within and across nursing journals with no apparent association with journal characteristics. Although variable, qualitative research appears more common in high-ranking nursing journals than in general medical and health services and policy research journals. DISCUSSION: Examining factors that contribute to inconsistent rates may identify strategies to optimize qualitative research reporting and publication.

Identifying optimal postmarket surveillance strategies for medical and surgical devices: implications for policy, practice and research.

BACKGROUND: Non-drug technologies offer many benefits, but have been associated with adverse events, prompting calls for improved postmarket surveillance. There is little empirical research to guide the development of such a system. The purpose of this study was to identify optimal postmarket surveillance strategies for medical and surgical devices. METHODS: Qualitative methods were used for sampling, data collection and analysis. Stakeholders from Canada and the USA representing different roles and perspectives were first interviewed to identify examples and characteristics of different surveillance strategies. These stakeholders and others they recommended were then assembled at a 1-day nominal group meeting to discuss and prioritise the components of a postmarket device surveillance system, and research needed to achieve such a system. RESULTS: Consultations were held with 37 participants, and 47 participants attended the 1-day meeting. They recommended a multicomponent system including reporting by facilities, clinicians and patients, supported with some external surveillance for validation and real-time trials for high-risk devices. Many considerations were identified that constitute desirable characteristics of, and means by which to implement such a system. An overarching network was envisioned to broker linkages, establish a shared minimum dataset, and support communication and decision making. Numerous research questions were identified, which could be pursued in tandem with phased implementation of the system. DISCUSSION: These findings provide unique guidance for establishing a device safety network that is based on existing initiatives, and could be expanded and evaluated in a prospective, phased fashion as it was developed.

How do we know when research from one setting can be useful in another? A review of external validity, applicability and transferability frameworks.

OBJECTIVE: To review published frameworks that included criteria for the assessment of external validity, applicability and transferability in their assessment of health research. METHODS: Five databases were searched for articles relating to the assessment of external validity or applicability and transferability in health research. A coding framework was developed inductively and used to assess which types of criteria were included in the frameworks. RESULTS: Thirty-eight articles describing 25 frameworks were identified. Eleven focused solely on the assessment of applicability and transferability; 14 presented more general decision-making or evidence appraisal frameworks. The criteria were synthesized into four main categories: setting, intervention, outcomes and evidence. None of the frameworks covered all the criteria identified. A major limitation was the lack of empirical data used to develop many frameworks and the apparent lack of assessment of their perceived utility. CONCLUSION: A validated framework of applicability and transferability would help those aiming to encourage research use, as well as those conducting research. Greater understanding of applicability and transferability could help to encourage the appropriate use of research and the development of research that is more useful.

A multidisciplinary systematic review of the use of diagrams as a means of collecting data from research subjects: application, benefits and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: In research, diagrams are most commonly used in the analysis of data and visual presentation of results. However there has been a substantial growth in the use of diagrams in earlier stages of the research process to collect data. Despite this growth, guidance on this technique is often isolated within disciplines. METHODS: A multidisciplinary systematic review was performed, which included 13 traditional healthcare and non-health-focused indexes, non-indexed searches and contacting experts in the field. English-language articles that used diagrams as a data collection tool and reflected on the process were included in the review, with no restriction on publication date. RESULTS: The search identified 2690 documents, of which 80 were included in the final analysis. The choice to use diagrams for data collection is often determined by requirements of the research topic, such as the need to understand research subjects' knowledge or cognitive structure, to overcome cultural and linguistic differences, or to understand highly complex subject matter. How diagrams were used for data collection varied by the degrees of instruction for, and freedom in, diagram creation, the number of diagrams created or edited and the use of diagrams in conjunction with other data collection methods. Depending on how data collection is structured, a variety of options for qualitative and quantitative analysis are available to the researcher. The review identified a number of benefits to using diagrams in data collection, including the ease with which the method can be adapted to complement other data collection methods and its ability to focus discussion. However it is clear that the benefits and challenges of diagramming depend on the nature of its application and the type of diagrams used. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The results of this multidisciplinary systematic review examine the application of diagrams in data collection and the methods for analyzing the unique datasets elicited. Three recommendations are presented. Firstly, the diagrammatic approach should be chosen based on the type of data needed. Secondly, appropriate instructions will depend on the approach chosen. And thirdly, the final results should present examples of original or recreated diagrams. This review also highlighted the need for a standardized terminology of the method and a supporting theoretical framework.

The efficiency and effectiveness of utilizing diagrams in interviews: an assessment of participatory diagramming and graphic elicitation.

BACKGROUND: This paper focuses on measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of two diagramming methods employed in key informant interviews with clinicians and health care administrators. The two methods are 'participatory diagramming', where the respondent creates a diagram that assists in their communication of answers, and 'graphic elicitation', where a researcher-prepared diagram is used to stimulate data collection. METHODS: These two diagramming methods were applied in key informant interviews and their value in efficiently and effectively gathering data was assessed based on quantitative measures and qualitative observations. RESULTS: Assessment of the two diagramming methods suggests that participatory diagramming is an efficient method for collecting data in graphic form, but may not generate the depth of verbal response that many qualitative researchers seek. In contrast, graphic elicitation was more intuitive, better understood and preferred by most respondents, and often provided more contemplative verbal responses, however this was achieved at the expense of more interview time. CONCLUSION: Diagramming methods are important for eliciting interview data that are often difficult to obtain through traditional verbal exchanges. Subject to the methodological limitations of the study, our findings suggest that while participatory diagramming and graphic elicitation have specific strengths and weaknesses, their combined use can provide complementary information that would not likely occur with the application of only one diagramming method. The methodological insights gained by examining the efficiency and effectiveness of these diagramming methods in our study should be helpful to other researchers considering their incorporation into qualitative research designs.