Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques

How has Japan become a major economic power, a world leader in the automotive and electronics industries? What is the secret of their success? The consensus has been that, though the Japanese are not particularly innovative, they are exceptionally skilful at imitation, at improving products that already exist. But now two leading Japanese business experts, Ikujiro Nonaka and Hiro Takeuchi, turn this conventional wisdom on its head: Japanese firms are successful, they contend, precisely because they are innovative, because they create new knowledge and use it to produce successful products and technologies. Examining case studies drawn from such firms as Honda, Canon, Matsushita, NEC, 3M, GE, and the U.S. Marines, this book reveals how Japanese companies translate tacit to explicit knowledge and use it to produce new processes, products, and services.

The knowledge-creating company : how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation

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.

/pdf/decision-aids-for-people-facing-health-treatment-or-1j1706q17l.pdf

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

This document represents the first collaboration between 2 organizations-the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition and the Society of Critical Care Medicine-to describe best practices in nutrition therapy in critically ill children. The target of these guidelines is intended to be the pediatric critically ill patient (>1 month and 2-3 days in a PICU admitting medical, surgical, and cardiac patients. In total, 2032 citations were scanned for relevance. The PubMed/MEDLINE search resulted in 960 citations for clinical trials and 925 citations for cohort studies. The EMBASE search for clinical trials culled 1661 citations. In total, the search for clinical trials yielded 1107 citations, whereas the cohort search yielded 925. After careful review, 16 randomized controlled trials and 37 cohort studies appeared to answer 1 of the 8 preidentified question groups for this guideline. We used the GRADE criteria (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to adjust the evidence grade based on assessment of the quality of study design and execution. These guidelines are not intended for neonates or adult patients. The guidelines reiterate the importance of nutrition assessment-particularly, the detection of malnourished patients who are most vulnerable and therefore may benefit from timely intervention. There is a need for renewed focus on accurate estimation of energy needs and attention to optimizing protein intake. Indirect calorimetry, where feasible, and cautious use of estimating equations and increased surveillance for unintended caloric underfeeding and overfeeding are recommended. Optimal protein intake and its correlation with clinical outcomes are areas of great interest. The optimal route and timing of nutrient delivery are areas of intense debate and investigations. Enteral nutrition remains the preferred route for nutrient delivery. Several strategies to optimize enteral nutrition during critical illness have emerged. The role of supplemental parenteral nutrition has been highlighted, and a delayed approach appears to be beneficial. Immunonutrition cannot be currently recommended. Overall, the pediatric critical care population is heterogeneous, and a nuanced approach to individualizing nutrition support with the aim of improving clinical outcomes is necessary.

Guidelines for the Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the Adult Critically Ill Patient Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.)

OBJECTIVES: To consider methods and related evidence for evaluating bias in non-randomised intervention studies. DATA SOURCES: Systematic reviews and methodological papers were identified from a search of electronic databases; handsearches of key medical journals and contact with experts working in the field. New empirical studies were conducted using data from two large randomised clinical trials. METHODS: Three systematic reviews and new empirical investigations were conducted. The reviews considered, in regard to non-randomised studies, (1) the existing evidence of bias, (2) the content of quality assessment tools, (3) the ways that study quality has been assessed and addressed. (4) The empirical investigations were conducted generating non-randomised studies from two large, multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and selectively resampling trial participants according to allocated treatment, centre and period. RESULTS: In the systematic reviews, eight studies compared results of randomised and non-randomised studies across multiple interventions using meta-epidemiological techniques. A total of 194 tools were identified that could be or had been used to assess non-randomised studies. Sixty tools covered at least five of six pre-specified internal validity domains. Fourteen tools covered three of four core items of particular importance for non-randomised studies. Six tools were thought suitable for use in systematic reviews. Of 511 systematic reviews that included non-randomised studies, only 169 (33%) assessed study quality. Sixty-nine reviews investigated the impact of quality on study results in a quantitative manner. The new empirical studies estimated the bias associated with non-random allocation and found that the bias could lead to consistent over- or underestimations of treatment effects, also the bias increased variation in results for both historical and concurrent controls, owing to haphazard differences in case-mix between groups. The biases were large enough to lead studies falsely to conclude significant findings of benefit or harm. Four strategies for case-mix adjustment were evaluated: none adequately adjusted for bias in historically and concurrently controlled studies. Logistic regression on average increased bias. Propensity score methods performed better, but were not satisfactory in most situations. Detailed investigation revealed that adequate adjustment can only be achieved in the unrealistic situation when selection depends on a single factor. CONCLUSIONS: Results of non-randomised studies sometimes, but not always, differ from results of randomised studies of the same intervention. Non-randomised studies may still give seriously misleading results when treated and control groups appear similar in key prognostic factors. Standard methods of case-mix adjustment do not guarantee removal of bias. Residual confounding may be high even when good prognostic data are available, and in some situations adjusted results may appear more biased than unadjusted results. Although many quality assessment tools exist and have been used for appraising non-randomised studies, most omit key quality domains. Healthcare policies based upon non-randomised studies or systematic reviews of non-randomised studies may need re-evaluation if the uncertainty in the true evidence base was not fully appreciated when policies were made. The inability of case-mix adjustment methods to compensate for selection bias and our inability to identify non-randomised studies that are free of selection bias indicate that non-randomised studies should only be undertaken when RCTs are infeasible or unethical. Recommendations for further research include: applying the resampling methodology in other clinical areas to ascertain whether the biases described are typical; developing or refining existing quality assessment tools for non-randomised studies; investigating how quality assessments of non-randomised studies can be incorporated into reviews and the implications of individual quality features for interpretation of a review's results; examination of the reasons for the apparent failure of case-mix adjustment methods; and further evaluation of the role of the propensity score.

/pdf/evaluating-non-randomised-intervention-studies-2k25cz7x6r.pdf

Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies.

Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation.

PURPOSE: Recommended surveillance for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers includes regular mammography and clinical breast examination, although the effectiveness of these screening techniques in mutation carriers has not been established. The purpose of the present study was to compare breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with ultrasound, mammography, and physical examination in women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 196 women, aged 26 to 59 years, with proven BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations or strong family histories of breast or ovarian cancer underwent mammography, ultrasound, MRI, and clinical breast examination on a single day. A biopsy was performed when any of the four investigations was judged to be suspicious for malignancy. RESULTS: Six invasive breast cancers and one noninvasive breast cancer were detected among the 196 high-risk women. Five of the invasive cancers occurred in mutation carriers, and the sixth occurred in a woman with a previous history of b...

Comparison of Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mammography, and Ultrasound for Surveillance of Women at High Risk for Hereditary Breast Cancer

We used a meta-analysis protocol to evaluate the results of 18 controlled trials that measured the effectiveness of perioperative total parenteral nutrition. The pooled results of 11 trials that were randomized or quasi-randomized showed trends suggesting that total parenteral nutrition reduced the risk for complications from major surgery (p = 0.21) and fatalities (p = 0.21). Consideration of these pooled estimates of the effectiveness of this intervention must be offset by the poor quality of the trials' methodologies and the iatrogenic complications (pneumothorax, septicemia) that occurred at a pooled rate of 0.067. Alternately, other design flaws, such as the failure to exclude patients who were not malnourished from the trials, may have limited the ability of these trials to show the effectiveness of total parenteral nutrition. The evidence available up to August 1986 shows that the routine use of perioperative total parenteral nutrition in unselected patients having major surgery is not justified; however, this intervention may be helpful in subgroups of these patients who are at high risk.

Perioperative Parenteral Nutrition: A Meta-Analysis

Why Are Some People Healthy and Others Not? The Determinants of Health of Populations.

A decision aid for the surgical treatment of early breast cancer was evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. The decision aid, a tape and workbook, includes explicit presentation of probabilities, photographs and graphics, and a values clarification exercise. Community surgeons were randomized to use the decision aid or a control pamphlet. Patients completed a questionnaire prior to using the decision aid, after reviewing it but prior to surgery, and 6 months after enrollment. There was no difference in anxiety, knowledge, or decisional regret across the 2 groups. There was a nonsignificant trend toward lower decisional conflict in the decision aid group. A subgroup of women who were initially leaning toward mastectomy or were unsure had lower decisional conflict. Although the decision aid had minimal impact on the main study outcomes, a subgroup may have benefited. Such subgroups should be identified, and appropriate decision support interventions should be developed and evaluated.

Vivek Goel

Papers

Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation.

Comparison of Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mammography, and Ultrasound for Surveillance of Women at High Risk for Hereditary Breast Cancer

Perioperative Parenteral Nutrition: A Meta-Analysis

Why Are Some People Healthy and Others Not? The Determinants of Health of Populations.

Randomized trial of a patient decision aid for choice of surgical treatment for breast cancer.