หนงสอเรอง การออกแบบการวจย: วธการวจยเชงคณภาพ วธการวจยเชงปรมาณ และวธการวจยแบบผสม (Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches) เปนหนงสอทเรยบเรยงเพออธบายเกยวกบความแตกตางของกระบวนทศนการวจยทง 2 แบบ ไดแก การวจย เชงปรมาณ และการวจยเชงคณภาพ และความจำเปนของประเดนปญหาการวจยทตองนำกระบวนทศนทง 2 มารวมกนหาขอคนพบเพอนำไปสผลการวจยทสามารถนำผลการวจยไปใชประโยชนไดอยางจรงมากยงขน เรยกวา “การวจยแบบผสมผสาน” ซงเปนหนงสอทอธบายวธการวจยทง 2 ประเภทไดอยางชดเจน และการรวมกนของกระบวนทศนการวจยทง 2 แบบอยางลงตว

Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches

Editor's Choice - European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2019 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-iliac Artery Aneurysms.

dismantling the welfare state reagan thatcher and politics of retrenchment are a good way to achieve details about operating certainproducts. Many products that you buy can be obtained using instruction manuals. These user guides are clearlybuilt to give step-by-step information about how you ought to go ahead in operating certain equipments. Ahandbook is really a user's guide to operating the equipments. Should you loose your best guide or even the productwould not provide an instructions, you can easily obtain one on the net. You can search for the manual of yourchoice online. Here, it is possible to work with google to browse through the available user guide and find the mainone you'll need. On the net, you'll be able to discover the manual that you might want with great ease andsimplicity

Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment

Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach

Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland; Or Why It's Amazing That Federal Programs Work at All . By Jeffrey L. Pressman and Aaron B. Wildavsky. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. Pp. xviii, 182. $7.50.)

When Elizabeth Costello, the main character in a novel by J. M. Coetzee (2003), is standing in front of ‘the Gate’, she is asked by the gatekeeper to write up a statement about what she believes in...

Editorial Introduction: Unpacking ‘Intervention’ in Science and Technology Studies

An exploration of sociological research that is neither “detached” nor “engaged”; a new approach to sociological knowledge production, with examples from health care. In this book, Teun Zuiderent-Jerak considers how the direct involvement of social scientists in the practices they study can lead to the production of sociological knowledge. Neither “detached” sociological scholarship nor “engaged” social science, this new approach to sociological research brings together two activities often viewed as belonging to different realms: intervening in practices and furthering scholarly understanding of them. Just as the natural sciences benefited from broadening their scholarship from theorizing to experiment, so too could the social sciences. Additionally, Zuiderent-Jerak points out, rather than proceeding from a pre-set normative agenda, scholarly intervention allows for the experimental production of normativity. Scholars are far from detached, but still may be surprised by the normative outcomes of the interactions within the experiment. Zuiderent-Jerak illustrates situated intervention research with a series of examples drawn from health care. Among the topics addressed are patient compliance in hemophilia home care, the organization of oncology care and the value of situated standardization, the relationship between standardization and patient centeredness, the development of patient-centered pathways, value-driven and savings-driven approaches to the construction of health care markets, and multiple ontologies of safety in care for older adults. Finally, returning to the question of normativity in sociological research, Zuiderent-Jerak proposes an ethics of specificity according to which research adapts its sociological responses to the practices studied. Sociology not only has more to offer to the practices it studies; it also has more to learn from them.

Situated Intervention: Sociological Experiments in Health Care

Over the past 20 years, evidence based medicine has had a substantial influence on clinical decision making throughout the developed world. It now underpins healthcare policy and the burgeoning industry of clinical guideline development. Two problems have resulted. Firstly, so called high level evidence is increasingly equated with strong recommendations; and secondly, evidence other than that derived from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is seen as intrinsically less valuable or reliable.

The concept of a hierarchy of evidence with RCTs at the top is deeply ingrained, despite Sackett and colleagues’ warning that evidence based medicine “is not restricted to randomised trials and meta-analyses. It involves tracking down the best external evidence with which to answer our clinical questions.”1 They pointed out that RCTs and systematic reviews of RCTs will provide the most reliable evidence that a therapy will do more good than harm but acknowledged that “some questions about therapy do not require randomised trials (successful interventions for otherwise fatal conditions) or cannot wait for the trials to be conducted.” 

They also made clear that other questions, such as those about diagnostic tests and prognosis, can only be answered using other forms of evidence. In his 2008 Harveian oration, Michael Rawlins, chairman of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), elegantly analysed the strengths and …

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/345/bmj.e6702.full.pdf

Guidelines should reflect all knowledge, not just clinical trials

Background: Patient participation on both the individual and the collective level attracts broad attention from policy makers and researchers. Participation is expected to make decision making more democratic and increase the quality of decisions, but empirical evidence for this remains wanting. Objective: To study why problems arise in participation practice and to think critically about the consequence for future participation practices. We contribute to this discussion by looking at patient participation in guideline development. Methods: Dutch guidelines (n = 62) were analysed using an extended version of the AGREE instrument. In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted with actors involved in guideline development (n = 25). Results: The guidelines analysed generally scored low on the item of patient participation. The interviews provided us with important information on why this is the case. Although some respondents point out the added value of participation, many report on difficulties in the participation practice. Patient experiences sit uncomfortably with the EBM structure of guideline development. Moreover, patients who develop epistemic credibility needed to participate in evidence-based guideline development lose credibility as representatives for 'true' patients. Discussion and conclusions: We conclude that other options may increase the quality of care for patients by paying attention to their (individual) experiences. It will mean that patients are not present at every decision-making table in health care, which may produce a more elegant version of democratic patienthood; a version that neither produces tokenistic practices of direct participation nor that denies patients the chance to contribute to matters where this may be truly meaningful.

/pdf/an-empirical-study-of-patient-participation-in-guideline-3pmwm9c0b7.pdf

An empirical study of patient participation in guideline development: exploring the potential for articulating patient knowledge in evidence-based epistemic settings

Teun Zuiderent-Jerak

Papers

Editorial Introduction: Unpacking ‘Intervention’ in Science and Technology Studies

Situated Intervention: Sociological Experiments in Health Care

Guidelines should reflect all knowledge, not just clinical trials

An empirical study of patient participation in guideline development: exploring the potential for articulating patient knowledge in evidence-based epistemic settings

Sociological refigurations of patient safety; ontologies of improvement and ‘acting with’ quality collaboratives in healthcare