Mixed methods grant applications in the health sciences: An analysis of reviewer comments
Mixed methods grant applications in the health sciences: An analysis of reviewer comments
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0225308
复制
发表时间：
2019-11-15
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Gallo, Joseph J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Guetterman, Timothy C.;Sakakibara, Rae V.;Gallo, Joseph J.
我们的目的是通过分析主要提交给美国国立卫生研究院的资助申请的审稿人评论，了解审稿人如何评估混合方法研究。我们要求健康科学混合方法研究培训计划 (MMRTP) 的学者和顾问向我们发送他们的混合方法拨款申请的摘要声明，并获得了 40 份资助 (40%) 和未资助 (60%) 混合方法拨款申请的摘要声明。我们使用基于 NIH 健康科学混合方法研究最佳实践的编码规则进行了文档分析，并允许归纳代码的出现。审稿人对混合方法应用给予了积极评价，这些应用表明了目标和研究设计要素、详细方法、混合方法集成计划以及理论模型的使用之间的一致性。审稿人发现了混合方法应用中的弱点，这些弱点缺乏方法细节或基本原理，参与者负担较高，并且未能描述研究者的角色。成功的混合方法应用传达了为实现特定目标而选择的方法背后的假设，并清楚地详细说明了要采取的程序。计划使用混合方法的研究人员应该记住，审稿人正在寻找两种观点。
Our aim was to understand how reviewers appraise mixed methods research by analyzing reviewer comments for grant applications submitted primarily to the National Institutes of Health. We requested scholars and consultants in the Mixed Methods Research Training Program (MMRTP) for the Health Sciences to send us summary statements from their mixed methods grant applications and obtained 40 summary statements of funded (40%) and unfunded (60%) mixed methods grant applications. We conducted a document analysis using a coding rubric based on the NIH Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences and allowed inductive codes to emerge. Reviewers favorably appraised mixed methods applications demonstrating coherence among aims and research design elements, detailed methods, plans for mixed methods integration, and the use of theoretical models. Reviewers identified weaknesses in mixed methods applications that lacked methodological details or rationales, had a high participant burden, and failed to delineate investigator roles. Successful mixed methods applications convey assumptions behind the methods chosen to accomplish specific aims and clearly detail the procedures to be taken. Investigators planning to use mixed methods should remember that reviewers are looking for both points of view.