Clinical Research Oriented Workshop (CROW) Meeting: July 7, 2010

Present: Amanda Kennedy, Rodger Kessler, Ben Littenberg, Connie van Eeghen

1. Round Table: Craig’s list – new great place to post positions, one of which could be the new position at the Given that Rodger has been working on

2. Connie’s Discussion:

a. Connie reviewed her dissertation study, for which she has completed the first of six case studies in a mixed methodology design. Her qualitative data were presented as a series of 90 PPT slides, for which she proposed nine header slides as a structure for sorting the results.
b. There is a danger of making this process so “experimental” (as a method of doing qualitative analysis), that the process itself would need to be validated in order to be accepted for publication purposes. As this is a dissertation about a different topic (quality improvement), Connie was strongly advised to stay within established approaches for qualitative assessment.
c. Two approaches were discussed in detail:
i. Giving the research group the “headers” in which to sort the “utterances” (the statements, phrases, questions, etc. created by the subjects) or allowing the research group to create its own headers from the utterances
ii. Asking the research group to sort the utterances into groups as individuals, creating their own relationships and conclusions, or asking the research group to convene to perform this task
d. To summarize the lengthy and helpful discussion: we decided that providing a subset of the headers up front was necessary to answer the specific research question. However, the size of the task makes it important to pick out only those headers that answer that question: the headers related to the dependent variables. To sort the data into those headers, the “CROW” research group will use one of its regularly scheduled meetings to perform this qualitative analysis. To help prepare the group, the slides will be sent out one week in advance, as the utterances are lengthy in some cases and are not going to be atomized due to the risk of losing context.
e. Next steps: Connie will schedule a date to return with the data printed out on separate sheets (August 11). She will also preprint the headers related to the dependent variables and will bring extra blank sheets for other relationships identified by the group. The utterances will be only those statements made by interviewees or from survey comments, not from the document review session or her field notes. After this exercise, we will plan future work on these data and other case studies.
f. Thank you all!

3. Next Fellows Meeting(s): Wednesday, 2:00 – 3:30 p.m., at Given Courtyard Level 4
a. July 14: How to predict medical events effectively (regression, recursive partitioning, neural networks, arbitrary algorithms) (Ben)
b. July 21: Carol – data collection/analysis (no Matt through Aug 21, no Connie))
c. July 28: (no Connie)
d. Aug 4: (no Connie)
e. Aug 11: Connie’s qualitative study on quality – members will be asked to perform analysis; slides to be mailed out one week ahead
f. Future agenda to consider:
i. Rodger: Mixed methods article
ii. Future: Review of different types of journal articles (lit review, case study, original article, letter to editor…), when each is appropriate, tips on planning/writing (Abby)
iii. Future: Informed consent QI: Connie to follow up with Nancy Stalnaker, Alan Rubin will follow up with Alan Wortheimer or Rob McCauly
iv. Kairn will ask a librarian to join us for selected issues

4. Fellows document – nothing this time – to be reviewed after trialing Wednesday meeting times, which started May 5, 2010.

Recorder: Connie van Eeghen