...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Health services research: HSR >Methodological reporting in qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods health services research articles
【24h】

Methodological reporting in qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods health services research articles

机译：定性，定量和混合方法卫生服务研究文章中的方法学报告

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Objectives 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. Data Sources All empirical articles (n = 1,651) published between 2003 and 2007 from four top-ranked health services journals. Study Design 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. Principal Findings 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). Conclusion 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.
机译：目标从方法上讲合理的混合方法研究可以通过提供比任何一种方法都单独提供的更全面的保健服务图貌来增进我们对保健服务的了解。这项研究描述了已发表的卫生服务研究中混合方法的频率，并比较了指示混合方法，定性和定量文章中采用严格方法的方法学组成部分的存在。数据来源2003年至2007年之间，从四个排名最高的卫生服务期刊上发表的所有经验文章（n = 1,651）。研究设计基于公认的评估研究报告质量的标准（例如，p的使用），对所有混合方法的文章（n = 47）以及定性和定量文章的随机样本进行了评估，以鉴定表明每种方法严格的关键成分的报告。 -定量报告中的值，定性报告中的上下文描述以及混合方法报告中的集成）。我们使用卡方检验来评估每个组件的商品类型之间的差异。主要发现混合方法的文章占经验文章的2.85％（n = 47），定量的文章占90.98％（n = 1,502），而定性的文章占6.18％（n = 102）。定量方法学成分的比例在统计学上有显着差异（?? 2（1）= 12.20，p = .0005，Cramer V = 0.09，比值比= 1.49 [95％置信区间= 1,27，1.74]）与定量论文相比，混合方法中的定性方法学成分的比例（分别为21.94％和47.07％），但混合方法中定性方法学成分的比例无统计学差异（?? 2（1）= 0.02，p = .89，Cramer V = 0.01）方法与定性论文相比（分别为21.34％和25.47％）。结论很少有发表的卫生服务研究文章使用混合方法。关键方法学组成部分的频率是可变的。提供了一些建议，以提高混合方法研究的透明度，并在已发表的报告中增加方法的关键组成部分。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号