Exploiting the potential of mixed methods studies in health services research.

Mixed methods studies, where qualitative and quantitative methods are used together in a single study, are undertaken in health services research (HSR). The question addressed here is whether researchers in HSR are fully exploiting the potential of mixed methods studies, and if not, then how they might maximise the potential of this approach. Methods used to examine this question included a review of the literature on mixed methods research; a quantitative documentary analysis of the research proposals, reports and publications of 75 mixed methods studies funded by ten Department of Health programmes in the period 1994 - 2004; and a qualitative study involving semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 20 researchers. It was evident from the documentary analysis that researchers are mixing methods in a range of different ways, with quantitative methods dominating, thus reflecting the conventional hierarchy of evidence in HSR. However, researchers could further exploit this approach by being clear about the purpose and practice of mixing methods when planning their studies, exploiting the contribution of qualitative components of studies, engaging with a wider range of ways of integrating data and findings from different components of a study, and being explicit in peerreviewed journal articles about any unique contribution made by this approach. Findings from the interviews with researchers suggest that researchers can contribute to fully exploiting the potential of mixed methods research by learning more about the different ways of integrating data and findings, respecting and understanding the strengths of the different methodological approaches, communicating with team members, and valuing integration. In HSR a multidisciplinary approach to team working is the norm whereby study components are undertaken separately. An interdisciplinary approach to team working is less common but may be associated with exploiting more of the potential of mixed methods studies. The external research environment appears to be conducive to interdisciplinary endeavour but not to interdisciplinary outputs. Structural change, as well as change in researcher behaviour, will be necessary if health services researchers are to fully exploit the potential of using mixed methods research

Conducting qualitative research within Clinical Trials Units: Avoiding potential pitfalls

The value of using qualitative research within or alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is becoming more widely accepted. Qualitative research may be conducted concurrently with pilot or full RCTs to understand the feasibility and acceptability of the interventions being tested, or to improve trial conduct. Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) in the United Kingdom (UK) manage large numbers of RCTs and, increasingly, manage the qualitative research or collaborate with qualitative researchers external to the CTU. CTUs are beginning to explicitly manage the process, for example, through the use of standard operating procedures for designing and implementing qualitative research with trials. We reviewed the experiences of two UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) registered CTUs of conducting qualitative research concurrently with RCTs. Drawing on experiences gained from 15 studies, we identify the potential for the qualitative research to undermine the successful completion or scientific integrity of RCTs. We show that potential problems can arise from feedback of interim or final qualitative findings to members of the trial team or beyond, in particular reporting qualitative findings whilst the trial is on-going. The problems include: 1. Unplanned modifications of the trial intervention during the full RCT 2. Selection bias and threats to external validity 3. Unblinding of group allocation 4. Breach of participant anonymity and confidentiality in small RCTs 5. Unplanned modifications of the trial processes and procedures 6. Threats to completion of recruitment, retention and outcome measurement. We make recommendations for improving the management of qualitative research within CTU

How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research

International government guidance recommends patient and public involvement (PPI) to improve the relevance and quality of research. PPI is defined as research being carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ patients and members of the public rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or ‘for’ them (http://www.invo.org.uk/). Patient involvement is different from collecting data from patients as participants. Ethical considerations also differ. PPI is about patients actively contributing through discussion to decisions about research design, acceptability, relevance, conduct and governance from study conception to dissemination. Occasionally patients lead or do research. The research methods of PPI range from informal discussions to partnership research approaches such as action research, co-production and co-learning. This article discusses how researchers can involve patients when they are applying for research funding and considers some opportunities and pitfalls. It reviews research funder requirements, draws on the literature and our collective experiences as clinicians, patients, academics and members of UK funding panels

Structural issues affecting mixed methods studies in health research: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health researchers undertake studies which combine qualitative and quantitative methods. Little attention has been paid to the structural issues affecting this mixed methods approach. We explored the facilitators and barriers to undertaking mixed methods studies in health research.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Face-to-face semi-structured interviews with 20 researchers experienced in mixed methods research in health in the United Kingdom.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Structural facilitators for undertaking mixed methods studies included a perception that funding bodies promoted this approach, and the multidisciplinary constituency of some university departments. Structural barriers to exploiting the potential of these studies included a lack of education and training in mixed methods research, and a lack of templates for reporting mixed methods articles in peer-reviewed journals. The 'hierarchy of evidence' relating to effectiveness studies in health care research, with the randomised controlled trial as the gold standard, appeared to pervade the health research infrastructure. Thus integration of data and findings from qualitative and quantitative components of mixed methods studies, and dissemination of integrated outputs, tended to occur through serendipity and effort, further highlighting the presence of structural constraints. Researchers are agents who may also support current structures - journal reviewers and editors, and directors of postgraduate training courses - and thus have the ability to improve the structural support for exploiting the potential of mixed methods research.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The environment for health research in the UK appears to be conducive to mixed methods research but not to exploiting the potential of this approach. Structural change, as well as change in researcher behaviour, will be necessary if researchers are to fully exploit the potential of using mixed methods research.</p

Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance.

Process evaluation is an essential part of designing and testing complex interventions. New MRC guidance provides a framework for conducting and reporting process evaluation studiesThe work was funded by the MRC Population Health Science Research Network (PHSRN45).This is the final published version. It first appeared at http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h1258

Recording harms in randomized controlled trials of behavior change interventions: a scoping review and map of the evidence

Objectives: Randomized controlled trials evaluate diverse interventions. This can include medical interventions such as drugs or surgical procedures, or behavior change interventions (BCIs) that aim to change a habit, belief, or attitude to improve health, for example, healthy eating, psychological wellbeing. Harms are often recorded poorly or inconsistently within randomized controlled trials of BCIs. This scoping review aimed to collate and describe literature on categories, definitions, and mechanisms of harms from BCIs; methods of identifying plausible harms; and recommendations for recording harms. Study Design and Setting: A scoping review was conducted. Three databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) were searched. Reference list checking and citation searching were performed. Articles were included if they discussed (1) interventions that aimed to modify behavior, (2) categories or mechanisms of harms, and (3) methods or recommendations for recording harms. All research designs were included. One reviewer reviewed titles, abstracts, and full texts; queries were checked with another reviewer. Data were extracted and synthesized descriptively by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer. A thematic map was constructed to summarize the review findings. Harms described from specific BCIs were identified, and examples were selected and summarized. Results: The review included 37 articles. Nineteen of 37 articles contributed to a thematic review. Three articles described categories of harms; categories of harm included physical, psychological, group and social interactions, cultural, equity, opportunity cost, environmental, and economic. Seven articles included mechanisms or underlying factors for harms including feelings of failure leading to shame or stigma, and group interventions enabling knowledge exchange on unhealthy behaviors. Twelve articles provided recommendations for recording harms, including taking a proportionate approach by focusing on the most plausible and important harms, collecting different perspectives on whether harms had occurred (eg, caregivers and family members), and using qualitative research methods to identify harms. One article described a three-step method to identify plausible harms from an intervention, and six articles supported aspects of the method. Eighteen of 37 articles contributed to a review which collated harms arising from specific interventions, for example, a peer support intervention in inflammatory bowel disease caused distressing conversations which might lead to anxiety and confrontation with a possible negative future. Conclusion: BCIs can cause harm. This review identified categories and proposed mechanisms of harms, as well as methods and recommendations for identifying and recording harms in BCIs for inclusion in forthcoming recommendations

Who does not participate in telehealth trials and why? A cross-sectional survey

BackgroundTelehealth interventions use information and communication technology to provide clinical support. Some randomised controlled trials of telehealth report high patient decline rates. A large study was undertaken to determine which patients decline to participate in telehealth trials and their reasons for doing so.MethodsTwo linked randomised controlled trials were undertaken, one for patients with depression and one for patients with raised cardiovascular disease risk (the Healthlines Study). The trials compared usual care with additional support delivered by the telephone and internet. Patients were recruited via their general practice and could return a form about why they were not participating.ResultsOf the patients invited, 82.9 % (20,021/24,152) did not accept the study invite, either by returning a decline form (n = 7134) or by not responding (n = 12,887). In both trials patients registered at deprived general practices were less likely to accept the study invite. Decline forms were received from 29.5 % (7134/24,152) of patients invited. There were four frequently reported types of reasons for declining. The most common was telehealth-related: 54.7 % (3889/,7115) of decliners said they did not have access or the skills to use the internet and/or computers. This was more prevalent amongst older patients and patients registered at deprived general practices. The second was health need-related: 40.1 % (n = 2852) of decliners reported that they did not need additional support for their health condition. The third was related to life circumstances: 27.2 % (n = 1932) of decliners reported being too busy. The fourth was research-related: 15.3 % (n = 1092) of decliners were not interested in the research.ConclusionsA large proportion of patients declining participation in these telehealth trials did so because they were unable to engage with telehealth or did not perceive a need for it. This has implications for engagement with telehealth in routine practice, as well as for trials, with a need to offer technological support to increase patients’ engagement with telehealth. More generally, triallists should assess why people decline to participate in their studies

Telehealth for patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease: pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Objective: To assess whether non-clinical staff can effectively manage people at high risk of cardiovascular disease using digital health technologies. Design: Pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Setting: 42 general practices in three areas of England. Participants: Between 3 December 2012 and 23 July 2013 we recruited 641 adults aged 40 to 74 years with a 10 year cardiovascular disease risk of 20% or more, no previous cardiovascular event, at least one modifiable risk factor (systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg, body mass index ≥30, current smoker), and access to a telephone, the internet, and email. Participants were individually allocated to intervention (n=325) or control (n=316) groups using automated randomisation stratified by site, minimised by practice and baseline risk score. Interventions: Intervention was the Healthlines service (alongside usual care), comprising regular telephone calls from trained lay health advisors following scripts generated by interactive software. Advisors facilitated self-management by supporting participants to use online resources to reduce risk factors, and sought to optimise drug use, improve treatment adherence, and encourage healthier lifestyles. The control group comprised usual care alone. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants responding to treatment, defined as maintaining or reducing their cardiovascular risk after 12 months. Outcomes were collected six and 12 months after randomisation and analysed masked. Participants were not masked. Results: 50% (148/295) of participants in the intervention group responded to treatment compared with 43% (124/291) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 1.9; number needed to treat=13); a difference possibly due to chance (P=0.08). The intervention was associated with reductions in blood pressure (difference in mean systolic −2.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval −4.7 to −0.6 mm Hg), mean diastolic −2.8 (−4.0 to −1.6 mm Hg); weight −1.0 kg (−1.8 to −0.3 kg), and body mass index −0.4 (−0.6 to −0.1) but not cholesterol −0.1 (−0.2 to 0.0), smoking status (adjusted odds ratio 0.4, 0.2 to 1.0), or overall cardiovascular risk as a continuous measure (−0.4, −1.2 to 0.3)). The intervention was associated with improvements in diet, physical activity, drug adherence, and satisfaction with access to care, treatment received, and care coordination. One serious related adverse event occurred, when a participant was admitted to hospital with low blood pressure. Conclusions: This evidence based telehealth approach was associated with small clinical benefits for a minority of people with high cardiovascular risk, and there was no overall improvement in average risk. The Healthlines service was, however, associated with improvements in some risk behaviours, and in perceptions of support and access to care