Jason Leonard A, Reed Jordan
Center for Community Research, DePaul University, Chicago, United States.
Health Psychol Behav Med. 2015;3(1):40-51. doi: 10.1080/21642850.2014.1000908. Epub 2015 Jan 9.
This article explores mixed methods approaches with an illness called Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). Qualitative and Quantitative data were used to investigate the epidemiology of this illness, as well as explore attributions based on the name of the illness, and finally treatment approaches. In each of the domains within the ME and CFS research reviewed, our analyses were richer and our findings ultimately more impactful when we integrated qualitative and quantitative research methods. The use of a multiphase mixed methods research program provided our team unique vantage points for better understanding social and community issues involving this controversial chronic illness. Further, this approach allowed us to implement the insights gained through an advocacy lens to change policy, recommend and evaluate treatments, and amplify voices within the patient population. In this way, we believe that the practice of methodological pluralism is especially applicable and effective to the study of chronic illness, and believe other investigators will benefit from the use of these approaches with similar disenfranchised and unfairly treated populations.
本文探讨了针对肌痛性脑脊髓炎(ME)和慢性疲劳综合征(CFS)这一疾病的混合方法。定性和定量数据被用于调查该疾病的流行病学,以及基于疾病名称探索归因,最后是治疗方法。在回顾的ME和CFS研究的每个领域中,当我们整合定性和定量研究方法时,我们的分析更丰富,最终我们的发现也更具影响力。使用多阶段混合方法研究项目为我们的团队提供了独特的视角,以便更好地理解涉及这种有争议的慢性病的社会和社区问题。此外,这种方法使我们能够通过倡导的视角运用所获得的见解来改变政策、推荐和评估治疗方法,并增强患者群体中的声音。通过这种方式,我们认为方法多元主义的实践对于慢性病的研究特别适用且有效,并相信其他研究者将从对类似被剥夺权利和受到不公平对待的人群使用这些方法中受益。