{"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.
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.