Mixed Research Design

Mixed methods research is systematic, theoretical, analysis of the method for conducting research that includes collecting data, analysis, interpretation of data and also integrating qualitative and quantitative data grounded by a certain principles. This approach to research is used when this integration provides a better understanding of the research problem than either of each alone the field of mixed methods has only explored a research problem. Mixed methods research is a concept that was originated in social sciences but have recently expanded into the health and medical sciences which includes fields such like nursing, family medicine, social work, mental health, pharmacy, allied health, and others. In the last decade, its procedures have been developed and refined to suit a wide variety of research questions

Mixed Research Design

Mixed methods research is systematic, theoretical, analysis of the method for conducting research that includes  collecting data, analysis, interpretation  of data  and also integrating qualitative and quantitative data grounded by a certain  principles. This approach to research is used when this integration provides a better understanding of the research problem than either of each alone the field of mixed methods has only explored a research problem. Mixed methods research was originated in social sciences and has recently expanded into the health and medical sciences including fields such as nursing, family medicine, social work, mental health, pharmacy, allied health, and others. In the last decade, its procedures have been developed and refined to suit a wide variety of research questions

Environments for Healthy Living (EFHL) Griffith birth cohort study: background and methods

The health of an individual is determined by the interaction of genetic and individual factors with wider social and environmental elements. Public health approaches to improving the health of disadvantaged populations will be most effective if they optimise influences at each of these levels, particularly in the early part of the life course. In order to better ascertain the relative contribution of these multi-level determinants there is a need for robust studies, longitudinal and prospective in nature, that examine individual, familial, social and environmental exposures. This paper describes the study background and methods, as it has been implemented in an Australian birth cohort study, Environments for Healthy Living (EFHL): The Griffith Study of Population Health. EFHL is a prospective, multi-level, multi-year longitudinal birth cohort study, designed to collect information from before birth through to adulthood across a spectrum of eco-epidemiological factors, including genetic material from cord-blood samples at birth, individual and familial factors, to spatial data on the living environment. EFHL commenced the pilot phase of recruitment in 2006 and open recruitment in 2007, with a target sample size of 4000 mother/infant dyads. Detailed information on each participant is obtained at birth, 12-months, 3-years, 5-years and subsequent three to five yearly intervals. The findings of this research will provide detailed evidence on the relative contribution of multi-level determinants of health, which can be used to inform social policy and intervention strategies that will facilitate healthy behaviours and choices across sub-populations

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field