Novel methodological approaches to support four recognized challenges in integrative medicine mixed methods research design

IF 1.7 Q2 Medicine
Freda Gonot-Schoupinsky
{"title":"Novel methodological approaches to support four recognized challenges in integrative medicine mixed methods research design","authors":"Freda Gonot-Schoupinsky","doi":"10.1016/j.aimed.2024.10.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>There are many challenges to undertaking mixed methods research (MMR) in integrative medicine (IM). Four that are recognized are: how to improve 1) planning; 2) evidence scope; 3) individual insight; and 4) data integration. Six methodological approaches conceived by the author to support these challenges in certain designs are shared for consideration.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>This commentary shares six novel methodological approaches that may facilitate diverse challenges in IM MMR. A “How to use” section is included for each approach.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Following a brief introduction to IM MMR, four challenges are highlighted and six novel methodological approaches that may mitigate them are presented: 1. The Feasibility, Reach-out, Acceptability, Maintenance, Efficacy, Implementation, Tailorability (FRAME-IT) framework; 2. The Biological, Psychological, Social, Environmental, Behavioural (BPSE-B) framework; 3. Post Intervention Perceived Impact Measures (PIPIMs); 4. Positive Autoethnography (PosAE) 5. Differential Qualitative Analysis (DQA); 6. The STAIR* (Sample sizes, Traceability, Article numbers, Intervention numbers, References*) checklist.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Each approach responds to different IM MMR challenges. 1. FRAME-IT is conceived to plan early-stage interventions. 2. BPSE-B supports a wide-ranging evidence scope. 3. PIPIMs support individual insight and are designed to bridge the quantitative-qualitative divide. 4. Positive Autooethnography supports individual insight in the form of personal experiences; 5. DQA is a qualitative methodology that encourages the integration of quantitative results. 6. STAIR* encourages the integration of quantitative reporting in intervention reviews.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Six novel approaches are proposed to support IM MMR planning; evidence scope; individual insight; and data integration. Theoretical implications and practical usage of each are elucidated.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7343,"journal":{"name":"Advances in integrative medicine","volume":"12 1","pages":"Pages 81-86"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in integrative medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212958824001381","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

There are many challenges to undertaking mixed methods research (MMR) in integrative medicine (IM). Four that are recognized are: how to improve 1) planning; 2) evidence scope; 3) individual insight; and 4) data integration. Six methodological approaches conceived by the author to support these challenges in certain designs are shared for consideration.

Design

This commentary shares six novel methodological approaches that may facilitate diverse challenges in IM MMR. A “How to use” section is included for each approach.

Methods

Following a brief introduction to IM MMR, four challenges are highlighted and six novel methodological approaches that may mitigate them are presented: 1. The Feasibility, Reach-out, Acceptability, Maintenance, Efficacy, Implementation, Tailorability (FRAME-IT) framework; 2. The Biological, Psychological, Social, Environmental, Behavioural (BPSE-B) framework; 3. Post Intervention Perceived Impact Measures (PIPIMs); 4. Positive Autoethnography (PosAE) 5. Differential Qualitative Analysis (DQA); 6. The STAIR* (Sample sizes, Traceability, Article numbers, Intervention numbers, References*) checklist.

Results

Each approach responds to different IM MMR challenges. 1. FRAME-IT is conceived to plan early-stage interventions. 2. BPSE-B supports a wide-ranging evidence scope. 3. PIPIMs support individual insight and are designed to bridge the quantitative-qualitative divide. 4. Positive Autooethnography supports individual insight in the form of personal experiences; 5. DQA is a qualitative methodology that encourages the integration of quantitative results. 6. STAIR* encourages the integration of quantitative reporting in intervention reviews.

Conclusions

Six novel approaches are proposed to support IM MMR planning; evidence scope; individual insight; and data integration. Theoretical implications and practical usage of each are elucidated.
新颖的方法学方法来支持中西医结合方法研究设计中四个公认的挑战
目的开展中西医结合混合方法研究(MMR)面临诸多挑战。人们认识到的四个问题是:如何改进规划;2)证据范围;3)个人洞察力;4)数据集成。作者提出了六种方法方法来支持某些设计中的这些挑战,供大家参考。这篇评论分享了六种新的方法方法,可以促进IM MMR中的各种挑战。每种方法都包含“如何使用”一节。在简要介绍了IM MMR之后,重点介绍了四个挑战,并提出了六种可能减轻这些挑战的新方法:可行性、可达性、可接受性、可维护性、有效性、可实施性、可定制性(FRAME-IT)框架;2. 生物、心理、社会、环境、行为(BPSE-B)框架;3. 干预后感知影响测量(pipim);4. 积极的自我民族志(PosAE)差分定性分析;6. STAIR*(样本量,可追溯性,物品编号,干预编号,参考文献*)核对表。结果每种方法应对不同的IM - MMR挑战。1. FRAME-IT旨在规划早期干预措施。2. BPSE-B支持广泛的证据范围。3. pipim支持个人洞察力,旨在弥合定量和定性之间的鸿沟。4. 积极的自动人种学以个人经历的形式支持个人洞察力;5. DQA是一种鼓励整合定量结果的定性方法。6. STAIR*鼓励在干预措施审查中纳入定量报告。结论提出了六种新的方法来支持IM MMR计划;证据范围;个人见解;数据集成。阐述了每种方法的理论意义和实际应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Advances in integrative medicine
Advances in integrative medicine INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
0
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Integrative Medicine (AIMED) is an international peer-reviewed, evidence-based research and review journal that is multi-disciplinary within the fields of Integrative and Complementary Medicine. The journal focuses on rigorous quantitative and qualitative research including systematic reviews, clinical trials and surveys, whilst also welcoming medical hypotheses and clinically-relevant articles and case studies disclosing practical learning tools for the consulting practitioner. By promoting research and practice excellence in the field, and cross collaboration between relevant practitioner groups and associations, the journal aims to advance the practice of IM, identify areas for future research, and improve patient health outcomes. International networking is encouraged through clinical innovation, the establishment of best practice and by providing opportunities for cooperation between organisations and communities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信