CROW Notes 9/13

Below are the notes Jessica took today in CROW from Marianne's paper titled Why Did VisualDx Fail to Make a Patient Outcome Difference in Primary Care? A Mixed Methods Evaluation of a Clinical Evidence Technology for Skin Disease

Title

·         Is using Visual DX in the title associated with Fail? Would fail in general go over well? Is it accurate?

·         Automatic word counters in the system

Abstract

·         Is explanatory mixed methods a term? Connie says Yes. Double check.

·         Results: Focused on randomized trial, not qualitative.

·         Check out SRQR…like consort it has a check-list of things you are supposed to hit on when submitting a publication to this journal.

·         Conclusion: This matches the TAM model…in conclusion the model supported …consider using the TAM

Background

Look over grammatical/structural issues of sentences. Think about combining the paragraphs or expand or provide examples on them.

Objective

Are the questions,

·         Love mixed method research

·         Love technology and want to know where this could be helpful

·         Interested in use of tech in medicine

Keeping the reader in mind, who are you writing for? Are they interested in health and interested in mixed-quality research.

Or are they the librarians and health IT professionals?

Author decision: we are interested in librarian, IT, and primary care..

Sequential Mixed Methods: Array of things happening are informing each other as the quantitative and qualitive inform each other. It’s inside a single study. This is a follow-up study that has qualitative and quantitative pieces to it…

Talk to a qualitative researcher: how do you fit these pieces together…if you are going to make it

It could be sequential…but it’s not written as such. Revise terminology OR revise description.

Librarians or physicians doing practice may find this useful for X reasons. Target why it is important and to whom.

Methods

This is where how do mixed methods researchers think about their stuff…this is a high level description…they want more

-show me a picture of the model

-show me how the pieces fit together

-make it clear to reviewers how you understand nuances that are part of the industry

 Maybe include a picture to make the description of the groups clearer (you could also include the mixed-methods approach here). CONSORT?

Showing the qualitative and quantitative

The survey informed us…we didn’t ask everyone everything because it wasn’t relevant

Consider reorganizing:

Show the model,

Qualitative

Quantitative

Methods (with participants and groups)

What’s the research question and who is the audience. 

Figure 1/Models

May want to highlight this is novel…

Dilema: This is more than one paper…it’s doing something fairly novel:

One is care

One is acceptance

Why did visual Dx fail…

Open it up more…how did you see these things fit together. Technology acceptance model…usability is a big part of that model…every time you use that word it makes me think TAM…but sometimes you use it associated with other topics…(also use is included in multiple ways)…See Connie’s responses

Good job talking about Visual Dx, but not a good job with how the models come together. Doesn’t need the two models, think about who is interested and who is using it..

When I got to the end of the article, I had heard more about TAM vs. how did we consider the way we use data.

To think about the way we use data…

Interested pictures:

Technology acceptance

How two models fit together (what has it taught us)

How does our analysis about Visual Dx teach us about evidence-based models and practice?

The comparison of the modes may distract.

Qualitative Analysis

Move this (IRB statement) because it is out of place. Either in the beginning or end of the methods.

Otherwise fairly clear. Interviews being coded may have been an issue…see Connie’s commetns.

Have a qualitative expert look at it before sending it out.

Table 1

This part was exciting…may want to talk about why people said it wasn’t helpful but they kept using it...include the p-value

Table 4

Not necessarily themes..because the researcher set this up..you created the structure and then the sub-themes are the actual themes. So maybe use structure/

Mixed methods results summary

Did you need this model to understand your results..I noted that in my copy…I think this could be presented more simply..I think this is more about methodology than practice of care.

Conclusions

Graphics and tables are great. So we can interpret what you have…it’s done both ways..think about how you are reading it and where it’s easier to find it…

Put the quote in the table versus not