Methodological Reporting in Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Health Services Research Articles
Methodological Reporting in Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Health Services Research Articles
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01344.x
复制
发表时间：
2012-04-01
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Green, Carla A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wisdom, Jennifer P.;Cavaleri, Mary A.;Green, Carla A.
目标.从方法上讲，合理的混合方法研究可以通过提供比单独使用任何一种方法更全面的卫生服务来提高我们对卫生服务的理解。本研究描述了在已发表的卫生服务研究中混合方法的频率，并比较了混合方法，定性和定量文章中指示严格方法的方法学成分的存在。研究设计：2003年至2007年间发表于四种顶级卫生服务期刊的所有经验性文章（n = 1，651）。所有混合方法文章（n = 47）和定性和定量文章的随机样本进行了评价，以确定报告的关键组成部分，表明每种方法的严谨性，根据公认的标准，评价研究报告的质量（e。例如，在一个实施例中，在定量报告中使用p值，在定性报告中描述背景，在混合方法报告中整合）。我们使用卡方检验来评估每个组件的文章类型之间的差异。混合方法的文章包括2.85%（n = 47）的经验性文章，定量的文章90.98%（n = 1,502），定性的文章6.18%（n = 102）。与定量论文相比，混合方法中定量方法组分的比例存在统计学显著差异（chi（2）（1）= 12.20，p = 0.0005，Cramer's V = 0.09，比值比= 1.49 [95%置信区间= 1.27，1.74]）（分别为21.94%和47.07%），但与定性论文相比，混合方法中定性方法成分的比例无统计学显著差异（chi（2）（1）= 0.02，p = 0.89，Cramer's V = 0.01（分别为21.34%和25.47%）。很少有发表的卫生服务研究文章使用混合方法。关键方法组成部分的使用频率各不相同。建议增加混合方法研究的透明度，并在已发表的报告中增加关键的方法组成部分。
Objectives. Methodologically sound mixed methods research can improve our understanding of health services by providing a more comprehensive picture of health services than either method can alone. This study describes the frequency of mixed methods in published health services research and compares the presence of methodological components indicative of rigorous approaches across mixed methods, qualitative, and quantitative articles.Data Sources. All empirical articles (n = 1,651) published between 2003 and 2007 from four top-ranked health services journals.Study Design. All mixed methods articles (n = 47) and random samples of qualitative and quantitative articles were evaluated to identify reporting of key components indicating rigor for each method, based on accepted standards for evaluating the quality of research reports (e. g., use of p-values in quantitative reports, description of context in qualitative reports, and integration in mixed method reports). We used chi-square tests to evaluate differences between article types for each component.Principal Findings. Mixed methods articles comprised 2.85 percent (n = 47) of empirical articles, quantitative articles 90.98 percent (n = 1,502), and qualitative articles 6.18 percent (n = 102). There was a statistically significant difference (chi(2)(1) = 12.20, p = .0005, Cramer's V = 0.09, odds ratio = 1.49 [95% confidence interval = 1,27, 1.74]) in the proportion of quantitative methodological components present in mixed methods compared to quantitative papers (21.94 versus 47.07 percent, respectively) but no statistically significant difference (chi(2)(1) = 0.02, p = .89, Cramer's V = 0.01) in the proportion of qualitative methodological components in mixed methods compared to qualitative papers (21.34 versus 25.47 percent, respectively).Conclusion. Few published health services research articles use mixed methods. The frequency of key methodological components is variable. Suggestions are provided to increase the transparency of mixed methods studies and the presence of key methodological components in published reports.