Cathy Charles

Bio: Cathy Charles is an academic researcher from McMaster University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Patient participation & Health care. The author has an hindex of 38, co-authored 90 publications receiving 10883 citations.

Sampling in Qualitative Research: Insights from an Overview of the Methods Literature

Abstract: Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines sampling as "the act, process, or technique of selecting a representative part of a population for the purpose of determining parameters or characteristics of the whole population." This popular understanding, however, differs from some of the understandings held by researchers and scholars in the qualitative research domain. Influential qualitative methods authorities from diverse backgrounds have contributed to these latter understandings, and there is much natural variation in the sampling-related ideas they present. The existence of even subtle inconsistencies, ambiguities, or incomplete descriptions in the methods literature regarding certain sampling-related issues can be problematic for students and researchers seeking to develop a coherent understanding of sampling that is applicable to their research situation. This problem can be exacerbated by the fact that these individuals often lack the time to search, retrieve, and review the qualitative methods literature systematically and exhaustively to develop comprehensive and balanced knowledge of the available methods guidance. Even seasoned qualitative researchers, who are usually expertly versed in the methods of their chosen research approach or tradition, may come to prefer and become most intimately familiar with the ideas of a subset of methods authors within that tradition. Thus, they may not be comprehensively familiar with the full range of opinions across authors (including any inconsistencies among them) within their tradition regarding a specific methods issue --something that can only be revealed through systematic comparison. Systematic comparison in turn depends on systematic selection of the literature to be compared. Systematically searching and selecting the methods literature, however, is generally more burdensome than it is for the empirical findings literature. This is because a greater proportion of the methods literature is found in books and edited book chapters, which take substantially more time and effort to identify, retrieve, and scan for relevant content compared to journal articles. To fill the need for rigorous synthesis of the guidance on sampling in qualitative research, we conducted a systematic methods overview--our term for a defined approach to reviewing the methods literature from diverse sources, described here. This review method involved a rigorous and transparent, yet purposeful, approach to searching the methods literature aimed at selecting and reviewing the most influential publications--ones that students and researchers from multiple jurisdictions are most likely to encounter among the available writings that address sampling. We chose the literature of grounded theory, phenomenology, and case study because these are popular approaches or traditions used in many health-related disciplines, and are also sufficiently different to allow instructive comparisons to be made within each of the sampling topics addressed below. Our findings are organized under eight distinct topic sections corresponding to the major domains of sampling identified in the review process. In each section, we summarize how the topic is characterized in the literature reviewed, present a comparative analysis of differences among the three research traditions, and finally offer comments representing our analysis of the clarity, consistency and comprehensiveness of the available guidance from the authors reviewed on that topic and potential areas in which more clarity could be provided. Importantly, it is neither our aim nor our intention to convey personal opinions or recommendations about how to do sampling in this review. By unifying the findings and discussion within topic sections, we aim to make it convenient for readers to locate content for any single sampling topic in one place. The Three Research Traditions Reviewed Each of the three traditions whose methods literatures were reviewed is characterized by its unique approach to data collection and analysis, which in turn underlies important variation in researchers' approaches and attention to sampling. …

What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment

Abstract: For many decades, the dominant approach to making decisions about treatment in the medical encounter has been one of paternalism.1–7 In recent years this model has been challenged by doctors, patients, medical ethicists, and researchers who advocate more of a partnership relation between doctors and patients.2 8–13 The reasons for this challenge have been described in detail elsewhere and include the rise of consumerism and the notion of consumer sovereignty in healthcare decision making; the women's movement with its emphasis on challenging medical authority; the passage of legislation focusing on patients' rights in health care; and small area variations in doctors' practice patterns that seem unrelated to differences in health status.7 Though the first three factors are seen as either contributors to or facilitators of patients' participation in making decisions about health care, the fourth highlights the imprecision or the “art” of medical care14: patients with similar clinical problems may receive different treatments from different doctors, due in part to systematic variations in practice patterns across geographical areas.14 15 The call for doctor-patient partnerships opens up options beyond paternalism for approaching the task of making decisions about treatment. But it also raises new complexities. Because a partnership between patient and doctor can take different forms, it is not intuitively apparent what this model would look like. The Oxford English Dictionary (1995) defines a partner as “a person who shares or takes part with another or others.” This definition leaves several important questions unanswered. For example, does the concept of a partnership imply that both doctor and patient need to share all parts of the decision making process? What is it that both parties are sharing, and to what degree? Who is responsible for determining if a partnership is possible and …

A shared treatment decision-making approach between patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians: the case of diabetes.

Abstract: In this paper, we discuss the Charles et al. approach to shared treatment decision-making (STDM) as applied to patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians. We perceive differences between the type of treatment decisions (e.g. end-of-life care, surgical treatment of cancer) that generated existing approaches of shared decision-making for acute care conditions (including the Charles et al. model) and the treatment decisions that patients with chronic conditions need to make and revisit on an ongoing basis. For instance, treatment decisions in the chronic care setting are more likely to require a more active patient role in carrying out the decision and to offer a longer window of opportunity to make decisions and to revisit and reverse them without important loss than acute care decisions. The latter may require minimal patient participation to realize, are often urgent, and may be irreversible. Given these differences, we explore the applicability of the Charles et al. model of STDM in the chronic care context, especially chronic care that relies heavily on patient self-management (e.g. diabetes). To apply the Charles et al. model in this clinical context, we suggest the need to emphasize the patient–clinician relationship as one of partners in making difficult treatment choices and to add a new component to the shared decision-making approach: the need for an ongoing partnership between the clinical team (not just the clinician) and the patient. In the last section of the paper, we explore potential healthcare system barriers to STDM in chronic care delivery. Throughout the discussion we identify areas for further research.

2015 American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for Adult Patients with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: The American Thyroid Association Guidelines Task Force on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer.

Abstract: Background: Thyroid nodules are a common clinical problem, and differentiated thyroid cancer is becoming increasingly prevalent. Since the American Thyroid Association's (ATA's) guidelines for the management of these disorders were revised in 2009, significant scientific advances have occurred in the field. The aim of these guidelines is to inform clinicians, patients, researchers, and health policy makers on published evidence relating to the diagnosis and management of thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer. Methods: The specific clinical questions addressed in these guidelines were based on prior versions of the guidelines, stakeholder input, and input of task force members. Task force panel members were educated on knowledge synthesis methods, including electronic database searching, review and selection of relevant citations, and critical appraisal of selected studies. Published English language articles on adults were eligible for inclusion. The American College of Physicians Guideline Gr...

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Abstract: Background Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty. Objectives To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions. Search methods For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008). Selection criteria We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were: A) 'choice made' attributes; B) 'decision-making process' attributes. Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model. Main results This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each. Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies). A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes: Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13). B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes: Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18); b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18). Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice. C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive. Authors' conclusions There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values. New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis

Abstract: การวจยเชงคณภาพ เปนเครองมอสำคญอยางหนงสำหรบทำความเขาใจสงคมและพฤตกรรมมนษย การวจยแบบการสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล กเปนหนงในหลายระเบยบวธการวจยเชงคณภาพทกำลงไดรบความสนใจ และเปนทนยมเพมสงขนเรอยๆ จากนกวชาการ และนกวจยในสาขาสงคมศาสตร และศาสตรอนๆ เชน พฤตกรรมศาสตร สงคมวทยา สาธารณสขศาสตร พยาบาลศาสตร จตวทยาสงคม ศกษาศาสตร รฐศาสตร และสารสนเทศศกษา ดงนน หนงสอเรอง “ConstructingGrounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis” หรอ “การสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล:แนวทางการปฏบตผานการวเคราะหเชงคณภาพ” จะชวยใหผอานมความรความเขาใจถงพฒนาการของปฏบตการวจยแบบสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล ตลอดจนแนวทาง และกระบวนการปฏบตการวจยอยางเปนระบบ จงเปนหนงสอทควรคาแกการอานโดยเฉพาะนกวจยรนใหม เพอเปนแนวทางในการนำความรความเขาใจไประยกตในงานวจยของตน อกทงนกวจยผเชยวชาญสามารถอานเพอขยายมโนทศนดานวจยใหกวางขวางขน

2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS).

Abstract: Supplementary Table 9, column 'Edoxaban', row 'eGFR category', '95 mL/min' (page 15). The cell should be coloured green instead of yellow. It should also read "60 mg"instead of "60 mg (use with caution in 'supranormal' renal function)."In the above-indicated cell, a footnote has also been added to state: "Edoxaban should be used in patients with high creatinine clearance only after a careful evaluation of the individual thromboembolic and bleeding risk."Supplementary Table 9, column 'Edoxaban', row 'Dose reduction in selected patients' (page 16). The cell should read "Edoxaban 60 mg reduced to 30 mg once daily if any of the following: creatinine clearance 15-50 mL/min, body weight <60 kg, concomitant use of dronedarone, erythromycin, ciclosporine or ketokonazole"instead of "Edoxaban 60 mg reduced to 30 mg once daily, and edoxaban 30 mg reduced to 15mg once daily, if any of the following: creatinine clearance of 30-50 mL/min, body weight <60 kg, concomitant us of verapamil or quinidine or dronedarone."