Research Practice and Methodology

Collection of articles on Research Practice and Methodology is available here.
What do they get out of it? Considering a partnership model in health service research
Access if not affiliated with University of Alberta

Askerud A, Jaye C, Doolan-Noble F, McKinlay E.
Prim Health Care Res Dev 2021 Apr 8;22:e14.
A research study to evaluate the implementation of a long-term conditions model of care provoked questions regarding the potential impact of the researcher’s role in health service research. Traditional methods of qualitative interviewing require researchers to be a disembodied presence, objective, and free from bias. When health service research is conducted by health professionals, role conflict may occur if the topic is one they have expertise in, and therefore the ability to provide guidance or information. An alternative perspective to the idea of an independent and objective researcher is the notion of a partnership. In this research collaboration, participants utilised the interview process to reflect and explore different perspectives, and the researcher bracketed their own participation in the phenomenon being studied. Reflexivity was utilised by both participants and the interviewer to ensure transparency and thus bridge the gap between subjectivity and objectivity in qualitative health service research interviewing.

Nursing home leader’s perceptions of a research partnership
Access if not affiliated with University of Alberta

Baier RR, McCreedy E, Uth R, Gifford DR, Wetle T.
Aging Clin Exp Res 2021 Apr 3:1-7.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Partnerships between healthcare providers and researchers may accelerate the translation of interventions into widespread practice by testing them under real-world conditions, but depend on provider’s willingness to engage with researchers and ability to fully implement an intervention. AIM: To understand nursing home leader’s motivations for participating in a research study and perceptions of the process and value. METHODS: After a feasibility study of tuned lighting in a nursing home, we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with six facility leaders. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and independently coded by four investigators. RESULTS: Three themes emerged: (1) The importance of the nursing home’s culture and context: the facility had stable leadership, clear processes for prioritizing and implementing new initiatives, and an established interest in the study’s topic. (2) The importance of leader’s belief in the value of the intervention: leaders perceived research generally and the intervention specifically as positively impacting their facility and residents. (3) The importance of ongoing collaboration and flexibility throughout the study period: leaders served as champions to catalyze the project and overcome implementation barriers. CONCLUSION: Nursing home leader’s perspectives about their participation in a feasibility study underscore the importance of establishing strong researcher-provider partnerships, understanding the environment in which the intervention will be implemented, and employing pragmatic methods that allow for flexibility in response to real-world implementation barriers. We recommend eliciting qualitative information to understand the environment in which an intervention will be implemented and to engage opinion leaders who can inform the protocol and champion its success.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Access if not affiliated with University of Alberta

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al.
Syst Rev 2021 Mar 29;10(1):89-021-01626-4.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on BMJ, PLOS Medicine, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology and International Journal of Surgery journal websites.

Approach to authorship for quality improvement and implementation research
Access if not affiliated with University of Alberta

Philips K, Rinke ML, Cowan E.
BMJ Qual Saf 2021 Apr 12.
In the ICMJE guidelines, the subjective determination of ‘substantial contribution’ is the most ambiguous. Is it determined by the time spent on the project or the value of the individual’s efforts? How is the role held in the project’s design and implementation weighed? When is the decision made that an author met ‘substantial contribution’ criteria? Who makes that decision? While the answers to these questions have been perseverated over for traditional human subject research, less attention has been given to answer these questions in QI and implementation research. We believe the following specific factors should be considered for authorship determination in QI and implementation research: generalisable knowledge; team composition; and timing of authorship determination.