Diagrammatic Elicitation: Defining the Use of Diagrams in Data Collection

The use of graphic representations of experience and the social environment in the data collection process is an emerging approach. The terms diagramming, mapping and drawing are often used interchangeably, with no common interdisciplinary understanding of what they mean. The lack of a unifying terminology has resulted in simultaneous but separate developments undermining a more coherent approach to this emergent method. By defining what a diagram is and examining where diagramming fits amongst other data collection approaches, this paper proposes the term diagrammatic elicitation to refer to the use of diagrams in the data collection process. Two subcategories of this approach include: (a ) participant - led diagrammatic elicitation, where participants create original diagrams and (b ) researcher - led diagrammatic elicitation, where the researcher draws the diagram during the data collection process for discussion or participants edit a researcher - prepared diagram. Establishing these terms will allow researchers to share best practice and developments across disciplines

Developing a decision aid to guide public sector health policy decisions: A study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Decision aids have been developed in a number of health disciplines to support evidence-informed decision making, including patient decision aids and clinical practice guidelines. However, policy contexts differ from clinical contexts in terms of complexity and uncertainty, requiring different approaches for identifying, interpreting, and applying many different types of evidence to support decisions. With few studies in the literature offering decision guidance specifically to health policymakers, the present study aims to facilitate the structured and systematic incorporation of research evidence and, where there is currently very little guidance, values and other non-research-based evidence, into the policy making process. The resulting decision aid is intended to help public sector health policy decision makers who are tasked with making evidence-informed decisions on behalf of populations. The intent is not to develop a decision aid that will yield uniform recommendations across jurisdictions, but rather to facilitate more transparent policy decisions that reflect a balanced consideration of all relevant factors.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>The study comprises three phases: a modified meta-narrative review, the use of focus groups, and the application of a Delphi method. The modified meta-narrative review will inform the initial development of the decision aid by identifying as many policy decision factors as possible and other features of methodological guidance deemed to be desirable in the literatures of all relevant disciplines. The first of two focus groups will then seek to marry these findings with focus group members' own experience and expertise in public sector population-based health policy making and screening decisions. The second focus group will examine issues surrounding the application of the decision aid and act as a sounding board for initial feedback and refinement of the draft decision aid. Finally, the Delphi method will be used to further inform and refine the decision aid with a larger audience of potential end-users.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The product of this research will be a working version of a decision aid to support policy makers in population-based health policy decisions. The decision aid will address the need for more structured and systematic ways of incorporating various evidentiary sources where applicable.</p

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

Development of a Decision Aid for Evidence-informed Public Health Policy: A Mixed Methods Study

This study contributes to the evolving needs of decision support for evidence-informed health policymaking. Its aim was to bring more formal consideration of context and a broader conception of evidence into public health policymaking, giving due prominence to all relevant types of evidence. A sequential mixed methods approach was used to undertake the development of a decision aid to support evidence-informed public health policy. A meta-narrative review and focus group were conducted to inform the initial development of the proposed aid. Key informant interviews followed, providing preliminary feedback for refinement of the tool. The final deliverable was a beta-version of a decision aid designed to assist policymakers with making evidence-informed public health policy decisions, ready for pilot testing and further development.M.Sc

Development of a Decision Aid for Evidence-informed Public Health Policy: A Mixed Methods Study

This study contributes to the evolving needs of decision support for evidence-informed health policymaking. Its aim was to bring more formal consideration of context and a broader conception of evidence into public health policymaking, giving due prominence to all relevant types of evidence. A sequential mixed methods approach was used to undertake the development of a decision aid to support evidence-informed public health policy. A meta-narrative review and focus group were conducted to inform the initial development of the proposed aid. Key informant interviews followed, providing preliminary feedback for refinement of the tool. The final deliverable was a beta-version of a decision aid designed to assist policymakers with making evidence-informed public health policy decisions, ready for pilot testing and further development.M.Sc

Development of a Decision Aid for Evidence-informed Public Health Policy: A Mixed Methods Study

This study contributes to the evolving needs of decision support for evidence-informed health policymaking. Its aim was to bring more formal consideration of context and a broader conception of evidence into public health policymaking, giving due prominence to all relevant types of evidence. A sequential mixed methods approach was used to undertake the development of a decision aid to support evidence-informed public health policy. A meta-narrative review and focus group were conducted to inform the initial development of the proposed aid. Key informant interviews followed, providing preliminary feedback for refinement of the tool. The final deliverable was a beta-version of a decision aid designed to assist policymakers with making evidence-informed public health policy decisions, ready for pilot testing and further development.M.Sc

Development of a Decision Aid for Evidence-informed Public Health Policy: A Mixed Methods Study

This study contributes to the evolving needs of decision support for evidence-informed health policymaking. Its aim was to bring more formal consideration of context and a broader conception of evidence into public health policymaking, giving due prominence to all relevant types of evidence. A sequential mixed methods approach was used to undertake the development of a decision aid to support evidence-informed public health policy. A meta-narrative review and focus group were conducted to inform the initial development of the proposed aid. Key informant interviews followed, providing preliminary feedback for refinement of the tool. The final deliverable was a beta-version of a decision aid designed to assist policymakers with making evidence-informed public health policy decisions, ready for pilot testing and further development.M.Sc