Pierre Pluye

Uncovering the Benefits of Participatory Research: Implications of a Realist Review for Health Research and Practice

Context Participatory research (PR) is the co-construction of research through partnerships between researchers and people affected by and/or responsible for action on the issues under study. Evaluating the benefits of PR is challenging for a number of reasons: the research topics, methods, and study designs are heterogeneous; the extent of collaborative involvement may vary over the duration of a project and from one project to the next; and partnership activities may generate a complex array of both short- and long-term outcomes. Methods Our review team consisted of a collaboration among researchers and decision makers in public health, research funding, ethics review, and community-engaged scholarship. We identified, selected, and appraised a large-variety sample of primary studies describing PR partnerships, and in each stage, two team members independently reviewed and coded the literature. We used key realist review concepts (middle-range theory, demi-regularity, and context-mechanism-outcome configurations [CMO]) to analyze and synthesize the data, using the PR partnership as the main unit of analysis. Findings From 7,167 abstracts and 591 full-text papers, we distilled for synthesis a final sample of twenty-three PR partnerships described in 276 publications. The link between process and outcome in these partnerships was best explained using the middle-range theory of partnership synergy, which demonstrates how PR can (1) ensure culturally and logistically appropriate research, (2) enhance recruitment capacity, (3) generate professional capacity and competence in stakeholder groups, (4) result in productive conflicts followed by useful negotiation, (5) increase the quality of outputs and outcomes over time, (6) increase the sustainability of project goals beyond funded time frames and during gaps in external funding, and (7) create system changes and new unanticipated projects and activities. Negative examples illustrated why these outcomes were not a guaranteed product of PR partnerships but were contingent on key aspects of context. Conclusions We used a realist approach to embrace the heterogeneity and complexity of the PR literature. This theory-driven synthesis identified mechanisms by which PR may add value to the research process. Using the middle-range theory of partnership synergy, our review confirmed findings from previous PR reviews, documented and explained some negative outcomes, and generated new insights into the benefits of PR regarding conflicts and negotiation between stakeholders, program sustainability and advancement, unanticipated project activity, and the generation of systemic change.

Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review

BACKGROUND Systematic literature reviews identify, select, appraise, and synthesize relevant literature on a particular topic. Typically, these reviews examine primary studies based on similar methods, e.g., experimental trials. In contrast, interest in a new form of review, known as mixed studies review (MSR), which includes qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies, is growing. In MSRs, reviewers appraise studies that use different methods allowing them to obtain in-depth answers to complex research questions. However, appraising the quality of studies with different methods remains challenging. To facilitate systematic MSRs, a pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) has been developed at McGill University (a checklist and a tutorial), which can be used to concurrently appraise the methodological quality of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. OBJECTIVES The purpose of the present study is to test the reliability and efficiency of a pilot version of the MMAT. METHODS The Center for Participatory Research at McGill conducted a systematic MSR on the benefits of Participatory Research (PR). Thirty-two PR evaluation studies were appraised by two independent reviewers using the pilot MMAT. Among these, 11 (34%) involved nurses as researchers or research partners. Appraisal time was measured to assess efficiency. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by calculating a kappa statistic based on dichotomized responses for each criterion. An appraisal score was determined for each study, which allowed the calculation of an overall intra-class correlation. RESULTS On average, it took 14 min to appraise a study (excluding the initial reading of articles). Agreement between reviewers was moderate to perfect with regards to MMAT criteria, and substantial with respect to the overall quality score of appraised studies. CONCLUSION The MMAT is unique, thus the reliability of the pilot MMAT is promising, and encourages further development.

Combining the Power of Stories and the Power of Numbers: Mixed Methods Research and Mixed Studies Reviews

This article provides an overview of mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. These two approaches are used to combine the strengths of quantitative and qualitative methods and to compensate for their respective limitations. This article is structured in three main parts. First, the epistemological background for mixed methods will be presented. Afterward, we present the main types of mixed methods research designs and techniques as well as guidance for planning, conducting, and appraising mixed methods research. In the last part, we describe the main types of mixed studies reviews and provide a tool kit and examples. Future research needs to offer guidance for assessing mixed methods research and reporting mixed studies reviews, among other challenges.

Systematic Review of Factors Influencing the Adoption of Information and Communication Technologies by Healthcare Professionals

This systematic review of mixed methods studies focuses on factors that can facilitate or limit the implementation of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in clinical settings. Systematic searches of relevant bibliographic databases identified studies about interventions promoting ICT adoption by healthcare professionals. Content analysis was performed by two reviewers using a specific grid. One hundred and one (101) studies were included in the review. Perception of the benefits of the innovation (system usefulness) was the most common facilitating factor, followed by ease of use. Issues regarding design, technical concerns, familiarity with ICT, and time were the most frequent limiting factors identified. Our results suggest strategies that could effectively promote the successful adoption of ICT in healthcare professional practices.

Validating a conceptual model for an inter-professional approach to shared decision making: a mixed methods study

Rationale, aims and objectives Following increased interest in having inter-professional (IP) health care teams engage patients in decision making, we developed a conceptual model for an IP approach to shared decision making (SDM) in primary care. We assessed the validity of the model with stakeholders in Canada. Methods In 15 individual interviews and 7 group interviews with 79 stakeholders, we asked them to: (1) propose changes to the IP-SDM model; (2) identify barriers and facilitators to the models implementation in clinical practice; and (3) assess the model using a theory appraisal questionnaire. We performed a thematic analysis of the transcripts and a descriptive analysis of the questionnaires. Results Stakeholders suggested placing the patient at its centre; extending the concept of family to include significant others; clarifying outcomes; highlighting the concept of time; merging the micro, meso and macro levels in one figure; and recognizing the influence of the environment and emotions. The most common barriers identified were time constraints, insufficient resources and an imbalance of power among health professionals. The most common facilitators were education and training in inter-professionalism and SDM, motivation to achieve an IP approach to SDM, and mutual knowledge and understanding of disciplinary roles. Most stakeholders considered that the concepts and relationships between the concepts were clear and rated the model as logical, testable, having clear schematic representation, and being relevant to inter-professional collaboration, SDM and primary care. Conclusions Stakeholders validated the new IP-SDM model for primary care settings and proposed few modifications. Future research should assess if the model helps implement SDM in IP clinical practice.

A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects

BackgroundCommunity-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) is an approach in which researchers and community stakeholders form equitable partnerships to tackle issues related to community health improvement and knowledge production. Our 2012 realist review of CBPR outcomes reported long-term effects that were touched upon but not fully explained in the retained literature. To further explore such effects, interviews were conducted with academic and community partners of partnerships retained in the review. Realist methodology was used to increase the understanding of what supports partnership synergy in successful long-term CBPR partnerships, and to further document how equitable partnerships can result in numerous benefits including the sustainability of relationships, research and solutions.MethodsBuilding on our previous realist review of CBPR, we contacted the authors of longitudinal studies of academic-community partnerships retained in the review. Twenty-four participants (community members and researchers) from 11 partnerships were interviewed. Realist logic of analysis was used, involving middle-range theory, context-mechanism-outcome configuration (CMOcs) and the concept of the ‘ripple effect’.ResultsThe analysis supports the central importance of developing and strengthening partnership synergy through trust. The ripple effect concept in conjunction with CMOcs showed that a sense of trust amongst CBPR members was a prominent mechanism leading to partnership sustainability. This in turn resulted in population-level outcomes including: (a) sustaining collaborative efforts toward health improvement; (b) generating spin-off projects; and (c) achieving systemic transformations.ConclusionThese results add to other studies on improving the science of CBPR in partnerships with a high level of power-sharing and co-governance. Our results suggest sustaining CBPR and achieving unanticipated benefits likely depend on trust-related mechanisms and a continuing commitment to power-sharing. These findings have implications for building successful CBPR partnerships to address challenging public health problems and the complex assessment of outcomes.

An open letter to The BMJ editors on qualitative research

Seventy six senior academics from 11 countries invite The BMJ ’s editors to reconsider their policy of rejecting qualitative research on the grounds of low priority. They challenge the journal to develop a proactive, scholarly, and pluralist approach to research that aligns with its stated mission

Impact of clinical information-retrieval technology on physicians: A literature review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies

PURPOSE This paper appraises empirical studies examining the impact of clinical information-retrieval technology on physicians and medical students. METHODS The world literature was reviewed up to February 2004. Two reviewers independently identified studies by scrutinising 3368 and 3249 references from bibliographic databases. Additional studies were retrieved by hand searches, and by searching ISI Web of Science for citations of articles. Six hundred and five paper-based articles were assessed for relevance. Of those, 40 (6.6%) were independently appraised by two reviewers for relevance and methodological quality. These articles were quantitative, qualitative or of mixed methods, and 26 (4.3%) were retained for further analysis. For each retained article, two teams used content analysis to review extracted textual material (quantitative results and qualitative findings). RESULTS Observational studies suggest that nearly one-third of searches using information-retrieval technology may have a positive impact on physicians. Two experimental and three laboratory studies do not reach consensus in support of a greater impact of this technology compared with other sources of information, notably printed educational material. Clinical information-retrieval technology may affect physicians, and further research is needed to examine its impact in everyday practice.

Advancing theories, models and measurement for an interprofessional approach to shared decision making in primary care: a study protocol.

BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is defined as a process by which a healthcare choice is made by practitioners together with the patient. Although many diagnostic and therapeutic processes in primary care integrate more than one type of health professional, most SDM conceptual models and theories appear to be limited to the patient-physician dyad. The objectives of this study are to develop a conceptual model and propose a set of measurement tools for enhancing an interprofessional approach to SDM in primary healthcare.Methods/DesignAn inventory of SDM conceptual models, theories and measurement tools will be created. Models will be critically assessed and compared according to their strengths, limitations, acknowledgement of interprofessional roles in the process of SDM and relevance to primary care. Based on the theory analysis, a conceptual model and a set of measurements tools that could be used to enhance an interprofessional approach to SDM in primary healthcare will be proposed and pilot-tested with key stakeholders and primary healthcare teams.DiscussionThis study protocol is informative for researchers and clinicians interested in designing and/or conducting future studies and educating health professionals to improve how primary healthcare teams foster active participation of patients in making health decisions using a more coordinated approach.

Systematic mixed studies reviews: updating results on the reliability and efficiency of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

This commentary is an update of results regarding an novative critical appraisal tool, called the ‘Mixed ethods Appraisal Tool’ (MMAT), which were published two papers in the International Journal of Nursing udies. In August 2014, the first paper was mentioned as e of the ‘most cited articles’ on the journal’s website luye et al., 2009). The second paper reported a pilot test the MMAT reliability and efficiency (Pace et al., 2012). e MMAT checklist includes two screening questions and items corresponding to five methodological domains: alitative research, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), n-randomized studies (NRS), quantitative descriptive dies, and mixed methods studies (MMS). The MMAT is sed on a constructionist theory and has been content lidated: for each domain, items were developed from the erature as well as consultations and workshops with perts (Pace et al., 2012; Pluye et al., 2009, 2011). The MMAT is a unique tool (http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com) that allows reviewers to concomitantly assess the methodological quality of studies with diverse designs (qualitative, quantitative and MMS) included in systematic mixed studies reviews (Crowe and Sheppard, 2011). Critical appraisal constitutes a key stage of systematic reviews, but appraising the methodological quality of studies with diverse designs remains challenging. The MMAT was designed to help overcome this challenge. The MMAT is recommended by the National Institute of Excellence in Health Services in Québec (INESS). To date, authors of more than 50 published systematic mixed studies reviews have used the MMAT, and MMAT developers have provided counsel on using the MMAT to 29 researchers, from multiple disciplines, in Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, UK, and USA. Mixed studies review is a new, and increasingly popular, form of literature review that includes studies with diverse designs (qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods) and addresses complex review questions (Pluye and Hong, 2014). Mixed studies reviews consist of mixed methods research applied to the field of literature reviews, and combine the strengths of quantitative and qualitative research (http://toolkit4mixedstudiesreviews.pbworks. com). This commentary is aimed to update results on the reliability and efficiency of the MMAT, specifically the new 2011 version (MMAT-v2011) (Pluye et al., 2011). There is a growing need for a tool like the MMAT, and as per our two previous papers, a need for additional supporting evidence for the MMAT. In previous work, we tested the pilot version of the MMAT (Pace et al., 2012) and results indicated that R T I C L E I N F O