Sampling in Qualitative Research: Insights from an Overview of the Methods Literature

The methods literature regarding sampling in qualitative research is characterized by important inconsistencies and ambiguities, which can be problematic for students and researchers seeking a clear and coherent understanding. In this article we present insights about sampling in qualitative research derived from a systematic methods overview we conducted of the literature from three research traditions: grounded theory, phenomenology, and case study. We identified and selected influential methods literature from each tradition using a purposeful and transparent procedure, abstracted textual data using structured abstraction forms, and used a multistep approach for deriving conclusions from the data. We organize the findings from this review into eight topic sections corresponding to the major domains of sampling identified in the review process: definitions of sampling, usage of the term sampling strategy, purposeful sampling, theoretical sampling, sampling units, saturation, sample size, and the timing of sampling decisions. Within each section we summarize how the topic is characterized in the corresponding literature, present our comparative analysis of important differences among research traditions, and offer analytic comments on the findings for that topic. We identify several specific issues with the available guidance on certain topics, representing opportunities for future methods authors to improve our collective understanding

Critical Approach to Reflexivity in Grounded Theory

A problem with the popular desire to legitimate one’s research through the inclusion of reflexivity is its increasingly uncritical adoption and practice, with most researchers failing to define their understandings, specific positions, and approaches. Considering the relative recentness with which reflexivity has been explicitly described in the context of grounded theory, guidance for incorporating it within this research approach is currently in the early stages. In this article, we illustrate a three-stage approach used in a grounded theory study of how parents of children with autism navigate intervention. Within this approach, different understandings of reflexivity are first explored and mapped, a methodologically consistent position that includes the aspects of reflexivity one will address is specified, and reflexivity-related observations are generated and ultimately reported. According to the position specified, we reflexively account for multiple researcher influences, including on methodological decisions, participant interactions and data collection, analysis, writing, and influence of the research on the researcher. We hope this illustrated approach may serve both as a potential model for how researchers can critically design and implement their own context-specific approach to reflexivity, and as a stimulus for further methodological discussion of how to incorporate reflexivity into grounded theory research

Filtering Medline for a clinical discipline: diagnostic test assessment framework

Objective To develop and test a Medline filter that allows clinicians to search for articles within a clinical discipline, rather than searching the entire Medline database

Core competencies in the science and practice of knowledge translation: description of a Canadian strategic training initiative

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Globally, healthcare systems are attempting to optimize quality of care. This challenge has resulted in the development of implementation science or knowledge translation (KT) and the resulting need to build capacity in both the science and practice of KT.</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>We are attempting to meet these challenges through the creation of a national training initiative in KT. We have identified core competencies in this field and have developed a series of educational courses and materials for three training streams. We report the outline for this approach and the progress to date.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We have prepared a strategy to develop, implement, and evaluate a national training initiative to build capacity in the science and practice of KT. Ultimately through this initiative, we hope to meet the capacity demand for KT researchers and practitioners in Canada that will lead to improved care and a strengthened healthcare system.</p

A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: a Tower of Babel?

<p/> <p>Background</p> <p>The study of implementing research findings into practice is rapidly growing and has acquired many competing names (<it>e.g</it>., dissemination, uptake, utilization, translation) and contributing disciplines. The use of multiple terms across disciplines pose barriers to communication and progress for applying research findings. We sought to establish an inventory of terms describing this field and how often authors use them in a collection of health literature published in 2006.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We refer to this field as knowledge translation (KT). Terms describing aspects of KT and their definitions were collected from literature, the internet, reports, textbooks, and contact with experts. We compiled a database of KT and other articles by reading 12 healthcare journals representing multiple disciplines. All articles published in these journals in 2006 were categorized as being KT or not. The KT articles (all KT) were further categorized, if possible, for whether they described KT projects or implementations (KT application articles), or presented the theoretical basis, models, tools, methods, or techniques of KT (KT theory articles). Accuracy was checked using duplicate reading. Custom designed software determined how often KT terms were used in the titles and abstracts of articles categorized as being KT.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 2,603 articles were assessed, and 581 were identified as KT articles. Of these, 201 described KT applications, and 153 included KT theory. Of the 100 KT terms collected, 46 were used by the authors in the titles or abstracts of articles categorized as being KT. For all 581 KT articles, eight terms or term variations used by authors were highly discriminating for separating KT and non-KT articles (p < 0.001): implementation, adoption, quality improvement, dissemination, complex intervention (with multiple endings), implementation (within three words of) research, and complex intervention. More KT terms were associated with KT application articles (n = 13) and KT theory articles (n = 18).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We collected 100 terms describing KT research. Authors used 46 of them in titles and abstracts of KT articles. Of these, approximately half discriminated between KT and non-KT articles. Thus, the need for consolidation and consistent use of fewer terms related to KT research is evident.</p

Impact of PubMed search filters on the retrieval of evidence by physicians

R etrieving health literature is a cornerstone of evidence-based practice. With the rapid increase in available evidence, physicians can no longer rely on one or two key journals to stay current. Increasingly, physicians search bibliographic databases, such as PubMed, for research evidence, which is dispersed across hundreds of journals. Each year, physicians perform over 200 million searches in PubMed. 1,2 Physicians face challenges while searching PubMed and often miss relevant articles while retrieving too many nonrelevant articles. 3-6 Clinical decision-making based on evidence from a search may be impaired if relevant articles are missed. Retrieving many nonrelevant articles impedes the efficiency of searching. Improved search strategies are therefore necessary to retrieve a manageable amount of information. The use of PubMed search filters may help solve this problem. Filters are objectively derived, pretested strategies optimized to help users efficiently retrieve articles for a specific purpose

Evaluating the impact of MEDLINE filters on evidence retrieval: study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Rather than searching the entire MEDLINE database, clinicians can perform searches on a filtered set of articles where relevant information is more likely to be found. Members of our team previously developed two types of MEDLINE filters. The 'methods' filters help identify clinical research of high methodological merit. The 'content' filters help identify articles in the discipline of renal medicine. We will now test the utility of these filters for physician MEDLINE searching.</p> <p>Hypothesis</p> <p>When a physician searches MEDLINE, we hypothesize the use of filters will increase the number of relevant articles retrieved (increase 'recall,' also called sensitivity) and decrease the number of non-relevant articles retrieved (increase 'precision,' also called positive predictive value), compared to the performance of a physician's search unaided by filters.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We will survey a random sample of 100 nephrologists in Canada to obtain the MEDLINE search that they would first perform themselves for a focused clinical question. Each question we provide to a nephrologist will be based on the topic of a recently published, well-conducted systematic review. We will examine the performance of a physician's unaided MEDLINE search. We will then apply a total of eight filter combinations to the search (filters used in isolation or in combination). We will calculate the recall and precision of each search. The filter combinations that most improve on unaided physician searches will be identified and characterized.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>If these filters improve search performance, physicians will be able to search MEDLINE for renal evidence more effectively, in less time, and with less frustration. Additionally, our methodology can be used as a proof of concept for the evaluation of search filters in other disciplines.</p

Systematic Reviews and Librarians

Systematic reviews are review articles that are completed using predefined methods to minimize bias inherent to observational studies. Systematic reviews are important to librarians because they integrate evidence across studies or data resources to provide knowledge that is useful to good decision making in our profession. In addition, as more systematic reviews are being published in many disciplines, librarians are being asked to assist with the production of them???- comprehensive searching is vital to the strength of the reviews. This article describes the process of producing systematic reviews and also describes their use. Librarians can acquire the skills necessary to use and produce high-quality systematic reviews.published or submitted for publicatio