Research results have expiration dates: ensuring timely systematic reviews

Time and timeliness are key issues in appraising and ensuring the clinical relevance of systematic reviews. Time considerations entering the systematic review process include the history of the clinical problem, disease, or treatment that is the target of the review, and the history of the research conducted to address it. These considerations guide: (i) formulation of the research problems and questions; (ii) setting of parameters for the search and retrieval of studies; (iii) determination of inclusion and exclusion criteria; (iv) appraisal of the clinical relevance of findings; (v) selection of the findings that will be synthesized; and (vi) interpretation of the results of that synthesis

On Quantitizing

Quantitizing, commonly understood to refer to the numerical translation, transformation, or conversion of qualitative data, has become a staple of mixed methods research. Typically glossed are the foundational assumptions, judgments, and compromises involved in converting disparate data sets into each other and whether such conversions advance inquiry. Among these assumptions are that qualitative and quantitative data constitute two kinds of data, that quantitizing constitutes a unidirectional process essentially different from qualitizing, and that counting is an unambiguous process. Among the judgments are deciding what and how to count. Among the compromises are balancing numerical precision with narrative complexity. The standpoints of “conditional complementarity,” “critical remediation,” and “analytic alternation” clarify the added value of converting qualitative data into quantitative form

Comparability work and the management of difference in research synthesis studies

The new imperative to be more methodologically inclusive has generated a burgeoning interest in synthesizing the findings of qualitative and quantitative studies, or mixed research synthesis. Yet, the very diversity seen to define the mixed research synthesis enterprise is also considered to defy it as it intensifies the problem of comparing the seemingly incomparable to enable the combination of the seemingly uncombinable. We propose here that the research synthesis enterprise, in general, and the mixed research synthesis enterprise, in particular, entail comparability work whereby reviewers impose similarity and difference on the studies to be reviewed. The very study diversity requiring management does not exist a priori but rather is itself an outcome of comparability work already done whereby judgments have been made about what constitutes methodological and topical diversity and uniformity. Conceiving the research synthesis process as defined by comparability work moves the backstage interpretive work of systematic review to center stage and, thereby, sets a new stage for addressing the methodological issues involved. These issues are explored by reference to the synthesis of empirical studies of antiretroviral adherence in HIV-positive women in the US

Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings

The new imperative in the health disciplines to be more methodologically inclusive has generated a growing interest in mixed research synthesis, or the integration of qualitative and quantitative research findings. Qualitative metasummary is a quantitatively oriented aggregation of qualitative findings originally developed to accommodate the distinctive features of qualitative surveys. Yet these findings are similar in form and mode of production to the descriptive findings researchers often present in addition to the results of bivariate and multivariable analyses. Qualitative metasummary, which includes the extraction, grouping, and formatting of findings, and the calculation of frequency and intensity effect sizes, can be used to produce mixed research syntheses and to conduct a posteriori analyses of the relationship between reports and findings

Coupled-Oscillator Associative Memory Array Operation for Pattern Recognition

Operation of the array of coupled oscillators underlying the associative memory function is demonstrated for various interconnection schemes (cross-connect, star phase keying and star frequency keying) and various physical implementation of oscillators (van der Pol, phase-locked loop, spin torque). The speed of synchronization of oscillators and the evolution of the degree of matching is studied as a function of device parameters. The dependence of errors in association on the number of the memorized patterns and the distance between the test and the memorized pattern is determined for Palm, Furber and Hopfield association algorithms

Patient perspectives on having multiple versus single prescribers of chronic disease medications: results of a qualitative study in a veteran population

BackgroundPatients with multiple chronic conditions often have multiple prescribers, which has been associated with greater health care utilization and medication nonadherence in claims-based analyses. This qualitative study was conducted to understand the reasons why patients have increasing numbers of prescribers of medications and to understand patient perspectives on advantages and disadvantages of having multiple prescribers, including effects on medication supply.MethodsThis qualitative study involved three focus groups comprising 23 outpatients from a single Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center with at least one chronic cardiometabolic condition (hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, or congestive heart failure). Participants were asked about their experiences, including perceived of advantages and disadvantages, of having multiple prescribers of cardiometabolic medications. Conventional content analysis was used to analyze the data.ResultsMultiple prescribers arose through referrals and patients actively seeking non-VA prescribers (primary care and/or specialist) to maximize timeliness and access to medications, provide access to medications not on the VA formulary, and minimize out-of-pocket costs. Patients seeking non-VA care had to coordinate own their care by sharing prescriptions and test results to their prescribers within and outside VA.ConclusionsPrescribing physicians should engage in open dialogue with patients to create a shared understanding of patient and provider goals and priorities for chronic disease medications

An electronic family health history tool to identify and manage patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundColorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States. Approximately 3-10% of the population has an increased risk for colorectal cancer due to family history and warrants more frequent or intensive screening. Yet, < 50% of that high-risk population receives guideline-concordant care. Systematic collection of family health history and decision support may improve guideline-concordant screening for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. We seek to test the effectiveness of a web-based, systematic family health history collection tool and decision support platform (MeTree) to improve risk assessment and appropriate management of colorectal cancer risk among patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs primary care practices.MethodsIn this ongoing randomized controlled trial, primary care providers at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System and the Madison VA Medical Center are randomized to immediate intervention or wait-list control. Veterans are eligible if assigned to enrolled providers, have an upcoming primary care appointment, and have no conditions that would place them at increased risk for colorectal cancer (such as personal history, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease). Those with a recent lower endoscopy (e.g. colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy) are excluded. Immediate intervention patients put their family health history information into a web-based platform, MeTree, which provides both patient- and provider-facing decision support reports. Wait-list control patients access MeTree 12 months post-consent. The primary outcome is the risk-concordant colorectal cancer screening referral rate obtained via chart review. Secondary outcomes include patient completion of risk management recommendations (e.g. colonoscopy) and referral for genetic consultation. We will also conduct an economic analysis and an assessment of providers' experience with MeTree clinical decision support recommendations to inform future implementation efforts if the intervention is found to be effective.DiscussionThis trial will assess the feasibility and effectiveness of patient-collected family health history linked to decision support to promote risk-appropriate screening in a large healthcare system such as the Department of Veterans Affairs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02247336 . Registered on 25 September 2014