Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34126980›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Advancing discussion of ethics in mixed methods health services research.

Nicole A Stadnick, Cheryl N Poth, Timothy C Guetterman, Joseph J Gallo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Nicole A StadnickDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. nstadnic@health.ucsd.edu.
Cheryl N PothDepartment of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Timothy C GuettermanDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Joseph J GalloMixed Methods Research Training Program, Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of California, San Diego · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

Mixed Methods Research Training Program - SupplementR25MH104660 · NIMH · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI GALLO, JOSEPH JOHN · 2014 to 2023
$1.7M
NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH104660
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo describe the ethical issues and experiences of scientists conducting mixed methods health services research and to advance empirical and conceptual discussion on ethical integrity in mixed methods health research.

methodsThe study was conducted with 64 scholars, faculty and consultants from the NIH-funded Mixed Methods Research Training Program (MMRTP) for the Health Sciences. This was a cross-sectional study. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics to characterize responses and open coding to summarize strategies about eight ethical mixed methods research issues. Respondents completed an online survey to elicit experiences related to eight ethical issues (informed consent, confidentiality, data management, burden, safety, equitable recruitment, communication, and dissemination) and strategies for addressing them.

resultsOnly about one-third of respondents thought their research ethics training helped them plan, conduct, or report mixed methods research. The most frequently occurring ethical issues were participant burden, dissemination and equitable recruitment (> 70% endorsement). Despite occurring frequently, < 50% of respondents rated each ethical issue as challenging. The most challenging ethical issues were related to managing participant burden, communication, and dissemination. Strategies reported to address ethical issues were largely not specific or unique to mixed methods with the exception of strategies to mitigate participant burden and, to a lesser degree, to facilitate equitable recruitment and promote dissemination of project results.

conclusionsMixed methods health researchers reported encountering ethical issues often yet varying levels of difficulty and effectiveness in the strategies used to mitigate ethical issues. This study highlights some of the unique challenges faced by mixed methods researchers to plan for and appropriately respond to arising ethical issues such as managing participant burden and confidentiality across data sources and utilizing effective communication and dissemination strategies particularly when working with a multidisciplinary research team. As one of the first empirical studies to examine mixed methods research ethics, our findings highlight the need for greater attention to ethics in health services mixed methods research and training.

Indexed as

ConfidentialityEthics, ResearchCross-Sectional StudiesHealth Services ResearchHumansInformed ConsentHealth services researchMixed methodsResearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID34126980
PMCPMC8204431
OpenAlexW3169726931

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.