Quality of reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research: a methodological review protocol

Teaching Social Determinants of Health in Nursing Programs: An Integrative Review of Strategies and Effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Incorporating social determinants of health (SDoH) into clinical decision-making can clarify disease causes, enhance care planning, and improve health outcomes. Nurse educators should know which strategies are most effective for teaching SDoH in bachelor of science in nursing (BSN) programs.

OBJECTIVE

This integrative review synthesizes the literature on familiarizing BSN students with SDoH and identifies effective teaching interventions for SDoH in these programs.

METHODS

The researchers searched CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, and ERIC databases, and 21 articles met the inclusion criteria. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines were followed for reporting.

RESULTS

The curriculum method, service learning, and international outreach experiences were frequently used teaching strategies. Qualitative evaluation was used to evaluate student outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurse educators should be mindful of these strategies. Interdisciplinary teamwork can bolster students' understanding of disadvantaged populations while integrating SDoH in nursing curricula. Quantitative evaluations of learning outcomes are needed to determine teaching effectiveness.

A commentary on the use of mixed methods in chiropractic research: Part 1: overview of mixed methods research

We recently each completed doctoral programs where the major focus of our work was in mixed methods research. In the first part of this three-part commentary, we present an overview of mixed methods research. In the second part, we present a summary of our primary and secondary research findings from our doctoral work involving mixed methods. In a third paper, we will discuss integrating qualitative research with randomized controlled trials and how this mixed methods study design can be applied to research within the chiropractic profession. Our aim with these papers is to increase awareness amongst the chiropractic community of the value (and challenges) of using this unique methodology. We also make recommendations for improving the quality of reporting and conduct of future chiropractic mixed methods studies. Further dissemination of this work will occur through online webinars and conference presentations.

Quality of Reporting Using Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study Criteria in Chiropractic Mixed Methods Research: A Methodological Review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review was to examine the reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research using Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) criteria.

METHODS

In this methodological review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from the inception of each database to December 31, 2020, for chiropractic studies reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods or mixed qualitative methods. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text studies, extracted data, and appraised reporting using the GRAMMS criteria and risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Generalized estimating equations were used to explore factors associated with reporting using GRAMMS criteria.

RESULTS

Of 1040 citations, 55 studies were eligible for review. Thirty-seven of these 55 articles employed either a multistage or convergent mixed methods design, and, on average, 3 of 6 GRAMMS items were reported among included studies. We found a strong positive correlation in scores between the GRAMMS and MMAT instruments (r = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87). In our adjusted analysis, publications in journals indexed in Web of Science (adjusted odds ratio = 2.71; 95% CI, 1.48-4.95) were associated with higher reporting using GRAMMS criteria. Three of the 55 studies fully adhered to all 6 GRAMMS criteria, 4 studies adhered to 5 criteria, 10 studies adhered to 4 criteria, and the remaining 38 adhered to 3 criteria or fewer.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research using GRAMMS criteria was poor, particularly among studies with a higher risk of bias.

Risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research: a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review

OBJECTIVE

To examine the risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review of chiropractic mixed methods studies. We assessed risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) and used generalized estimating equations to explore factors associated with risk of bias.

RESULTS

Among 55 eligible studies, a mean of 62% (6.8 [2.3]/11) of MMAT items were fulfilled. In our adjusted analysis, studies published since 2010 versus pre-2010 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39 to 3.68) and those published in journals with an impact factor versus no impact factor (aOR = 2.21; 95% CI, 1.33 to 3.68) were associated with lower risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest opportunities for improvement in the quality of conduct among published chiropractic mixed methods studies. Author compliance with the MMAT criteria may reduce methodological bias in future mixed methods research.