An analysis of qualitative and mixed methods abstracts from Japanese, UK and US primary care conferences.

Q1 Medicine
Asia Pacific Family Medicine Pub Date : 2018-11-22 eCollection Date: 2018-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s12930-018-0048-8
Makoto Kaneko, Takuya Aoki, Ryuichi Ohta, Machiko Inoue, Rakesh N Modi
{"title":"An analysis of qualitative and mixed methods abstracts from Japanese, UK and US primary care conferences.","authors":"Makoto Kaneko,&nbsp;Takuya Aoki,&nbsp;Ryuichi Ohta,&nbsp;Machiko Inoue,&nbsp;Rakesh N Modi","doi":"10.1186/s12930-018-0048-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As research in family medicine covers varied topics, multiple methodologies such as qualitative research (QR) and mixed methods research (MMR) are crucial. However, we do not know about the difference in the proportion of QR or MMR between Japan, the UK and the US. This knowledge is needed to shape future research within countries with developing primary care such as Japan and other Asian countries. This study aims to describe the use of QR and MMR in Japanese primary care and compare this to the UK and US; then to make informed recommendations for primary care research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A repeated cross-sectional study (2012-2016) based on the abstracts submitted to the annual conferences of the Japanese Primary Care Association in Japan, the Royal College of General Practitioners in the UK, and the North American Primary Care Research Group in the US and other North American countries. The proportions of QR/MMR among all the posters and paper presentations for each of these three conferences were assessed. Also examined were trends and types of qualitative techniques for all three countries and participants/settings for Japan.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 1080 abstracts for Japan, 575 for UK and 3614 for US conferences. QR/MMR proportions were 7.5%, 15.1% and 28.1%, respectively. Japan's proportion was lower than that of UK and US (p < 0.001). The proportion was increasing over time for the UK (p = 0.02). Steps for coding and analyses was most popular for Japan, thematic analysis for the UK and grounded theory for the US. Primary care doctors and hospitals were the commonest contexts for Japan.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>QR and MMR were not as popular in primary care in Japan compared to the UK and the US, whereas their use was increasing in the UK. Approaches, participants and settings may differ among these countries. Education and promotion of QR/MMR and multi-disciplinary collaborations need to be recommended in Japan with developing primary care.</p>","PeriodicalId":39050,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Family Medicine","volume":"17 ","pages":"11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s12930-018-0048-8","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Pacific Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12930-018-0048-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: As research in family medicine covers varied topics, multiple methodologies such as qualitative research (QR) and mixed methods research (MMR) are crucial. However, we do not know about the difference in the proportion of QR or MMR between Japan, the UK and the US. This knowledge is needed to shape future research within countries with developing primary care such as Japan and other Asian countries. This study aims to describe the use of QR and MMR in Japanese primary care and compare this to the UK and US; then to make informed recommendations for primary care research.

Methods: A repeated cross-sectional study (2012-2016) based on the abstracts submitted to the annual conferences of the Japanese Primary Care Association in Japan, the Royal College of General Practitioners in the UK, and the North American Primary Care Research Group in the US and other North American countries. The proportions of QR/MMR among all the posters and paper presentations for each of these three conferences were assessed. Also examined were trends and types of qualitative techniques for all three countries and participants/settings for Japan.

Results: There were 1080 abstracts for Japan, 575 for UK and 3614 for US conferences. QR/MMR proportions were 7.5%, 15.1% and 28.1%, respectively. Japan's proportion was lower than that of UK and US (p < 0.001). The proportion was increasing over time for the UK (p = 0.02). Steps for coding and analyses was most popular for Japan, thematic analysis for the UK and grounded theory for the US. Primary care doctors and hospitals were the commonest contexts for Japan.

Conclusions: QR and MMR were not as popular in primary care in Japan compared to the UK and the US, whereas their use was increasing in the UK. Approaches, participants and settings may differ among these countries. Education and promotion of QR/MMR and multi-disciplinary collaborations need to be recommended in Japan with developing primary care.

Abstract Image

日本、英国和美国初级保健会议的定性和混合方法摘要分析。
背景:由于家庭医学研究涉及多种主题,因此定性研究(QR)和混合方法研究(MMR)等多种方法至关重要。但是,我们不知道日本、英国和美国的QR或MMR的比例有什么不同。这方面的知识需要在初级保健发展中国家(如日本和其他亚洲国家)内塑造未来的研究。本研究旨在描述QR和MMR在日本初级保健中的使用,并将其与英国和美国进行比较;然后为初级保健研究提出明智的建议。方法:基于日本初级保健协会(Japanese Primary Care Association)、英国皇家全科医师学院(Royal College of General Practitioners)、美国和其他北美国家的北美初级保健研究小组(North American Primary Care Research Group)年度会议上提交的摘要,进行重复横断面研究(2012-2016)。评估了这三次会议的所有海报和论文中QR/MMR的比例。还审查了所有三个国家的趋势和定性技术类型以及日本的参与者/环境。结果:日本会议有1080篇,英国会议有575篇,美国会议有3614篇。QR/MMR比例分别为7.5%、15.1%和28.1%。结论:与英国和美国相比,QR和MMR在日本的初级保健中并不普及,而它们在英国的使用正在增加。这些国家的方法、参与者和环境可能有所不同。在日本发展初级保健时,需要建议开展教育和推广QR/MMR以及多学科合作。
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
Asia Pacific Family Medicine
Asia Pacific Family Medicine Medicine-Family Practice
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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