Campbell David J T, Tam-Tham Helen, Dhaliwal Kirnvir K, Manns Braden J, Hemmelgarn Brenda R, Sanmartin Claudia, King-Shier Kathryn
From the Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine (D.J.T.C., B.J.M., B.R.H.), Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine (D.J.T.C., H.T.-T., B.J.M., B.R.H., C.S., K.K.-S.), Interdisciplinary Chronic Disease Collaboration (D.J.T.C., H.T.-T., B.J.M., B.R.H.), Faculty of Nursing (K.K.D., K.K.-S.), Libin Cardiovascular Institute (B.J.M., B.R.H., K.K.-S.), and O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada (B.J.M., B.R.H., K.K.-S.); and Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (C.S.).
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017 Jan;10(1). doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.116.003310.
Mixed methods research, the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods within 1 program of study, is becoming increasingly popular to allow investigators to explore patient experiences (qualitative) and also measure outcomes (quantitative). Coronary artery disease and its risk factors are some of the most studied conditions; however, the extent to which mixed methods studies are being conducted in these content areas is unknown. We sought to comprehensively describe the characteristics of published mixed methods studies on coronary artery disease and major risk factors (diabetes mellitus and hypertension).
We conducted a scoping review of the literature indexed in PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL. We identified 811 abstracts for screening, of which 254 articles underwent full-text review and 97 reports of 81 studies met criteria for inclusion. The majority of studies in this area were conducted in the past 10 years by nurse researchers from the United States and United Kingdom. Diabetes mellitus was the most common content area for mixed methods investigation (compared with coronary artery disease and hypertension). Most authors described their rationale for using mixed methods as complementarity and did not describe study priority or how they reconciled differences in methodological paradigms. Some mixed methods study designs were more commonly used than others, including concurrent timing and integration at the interpretation stage. Qualitative strands were most commonly descriptive studies using interviews for data collection. Quantitative strands were most commonly cross-sectional observational studies, which relied heavily on self-report data such as surveys and scales.
Although mixed methods research is becoming increasingly popular in the area of coronary artery disease and its risk factors, many of the more advanced mixed methods, qualitative, and quantitative techniques have not been commonly used in these areas.
混合方法研究,即在一个研究项目中同时使用定性和定量方法,越来越受到青睐,使研究者能够探索患者体验(定性)并衡量结果(定量)。冠状动脉疾病及其危险因素是研究最多的一些病症;然而,在这些领域进行混合方法研究的程度尚不清楚。我们试图全面描述已发表的关于冠状动脉疾病和主要危险因素(糖尿病和高血压)的混合方法研究的特征。
我们对PubMed、Medline、EMBASE和CINAHL索引的文献进行了范围综述。我们识别出811篇摘要用于筛选,其中254篇文章进行了全文审查,81项研究的97份报告符合纳入标准。该领域的大多数研究是过去10年由来自美国和英国的护士研究人员进行的。糖尿病是混合方法研究最常见的内容领域(与冠状动脉疾病和高血压相比)。大多数作者将使用混合方法的基本原理描述为互补性,未描述研究重点或如何协调方法范式的差异。一些混合方法研究设计比其他设计更常用,包括同步时间安排和在解释阶段整合。定性部分最常见的是使用访谈收集数据的描述性研究。定量部分最常见的是横断面观察性研究,严重依赖于自我报告数据,如调查和量表。
尽管混合方法研究在冠状动脉疾病及其危险因素领域越来越受欢迎,但许多更先进的混合方法、定性和定量技术在这些领域尚未普遍使用。