Search

Background: The scope of methodological development and innovation in multi- and mixed methods design is endless and, at times, challenging. The latter is especially true with regards to the integration of data generated through different methods. About a decade ago, Professor Jo Moran-Ellis and her colleagues at the University of Sussex suggested a framework for analytical integration known as "following a thread." Despite an increased focus within health services research on different perspectives and approaches to successful data integration, the framework's usability and application have not yet been well described., Objectives: This systematic review aims to integrate and synthesise published accounts of the framework and its applications., Design and Data Sources: Seven electronic databases were utilised. Included were peer-reviewed scientific papers published in English from 2006 - 2018. The authors independently screened eligible publications by title and abstract., Results: Thirteen studies were included in our systematic review. One notable finding is that in almost half of the cases (n = 6), the framework had been applied as an analytical integration framework in single studies using multiple qualitative methods. Overall, the descriptions and accounts of the framework were sparse and lacked transparency. Accounts of the analytical integration framework could be said to fall within three overarching areas: (1) applications of the framework, (2) justifications for analytical integration, and (3) benefits and shortfalls of the framework., Conclusion: Data integration is often one of the major method steps in multi- and mixed methods designs. To further the future development of methodologically sound frameworks for analytical integration, it is essential that they are sufficiently described so as to ensure validation of the framework's usability and replicability. "Following a thread" appears to be an promising analytical integration framework, particularly in that it can be applied with the same datatypes as well as between different types of data., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

In this article we ask our profession to consider whether something is rotten at the core of modern nursing. We will use our own experiences as patients, together with published literature, to ask questions of our profession in perpetrating what one of our colleagues recently, and with great embarrassment, referred to as 'shitty nursing'. Our intention is most certainly not to offend any readers, for this term has been used in literature for more than one hundred years to describe bad situations, including those where events or people's behaviour are of a low standard. Our intention instead, is to challenge ourselves, the profession and you the reader by raising a measured debate which seems at present to be missing within the profession. We examine the potential idea that poor nursing care may not be the exception, but horrifyingly, may be the new normal. We are particularly concerned that patients' fundamental care needs may be falling into an ever widening gap between assistant and registered nurses. Whilst we acknowledge the potential causes of poor nursing care, causes that are often cited by nurses themselves, we come to the conclusion that a mature profession including clinicians, educators, administrators, researchers and regulators cannot continually blame contextual factors for its failings. A mature profession with an intact contract between itself and society must shoulder some of the responsibility for its own problems. We do suggest a way forward, including a mix of reconciliation, refocus and research, underpinned by what we argue is a much needed dose of professional humility. Readers may take us to task for potentially overstating the problem, ignoring non-nursing drivers, and downplaying other significant factors. You may think that there is much in nursing to glory in. However, we make no apology for presenting our views. Our lived experiences tell us something different. As professional nurses our main aim is to ensure that our adverse experiences as patients are statistical anomalies, and our future encounters with nursing care represent all that we know to be excellent in our profession. We leave you to judge and comment., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

In a guest editorial in this journal, Rahm Hallberg [Rahm Hallberg, I., 2006. Challenges for future nursing research: providing evidence for health-care practice. International Journal of Nursing Studies 43, 923-927] called for research which has greater explanatory power to determine the effectiveness of nursing interventions. In this paper we critique the suggestion made by the evidence-based nursing movement that randomisation per se is the principal route to better quality nursing research. In contrast, we evaluate the new CONSORT criteria for pragmatic RCTs, which assess the quality of strategies to reduce selection, performance, attrition and detection biases, allowing many different types of comparative studies to be covered by application of the checklist. We propose that randomisation alone is a necessary but insufficient strategy and that nursing researchers rise to Rahm Hallberg's challenge by adopting the extended criteria to assist in the critical appraisal, design and reporting of all experimental research in nursing.

Objective: To describe and compare self-reported health complaints, overall and health-related quality of life and to investigate how health complaints, age, gender, marital status, living and dwelling conditions and socio-economy predicted overall and health-related quality of life., Data and Method: A sample of 469 persons (aged 75-99) responded to a postal questionnaire. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine possible predictors., Result: Self-reported health complaints such as pain, fatigue and mobility impairment significantly predicted low overall and health-related quality life. Women had significantly lower overall and health-related quality of life than men, and a significantly higher degree of self-reported health complaints. The regression models had more similarities than differences, implying that the overall quality of life instrument were sensitive to physical influences only supposed to be detected by health-related quality of life instruments. Several of the health complaints predicting low quality of life are amenable for being relieved by nursing care. In the care of older people nurses need to assess for several health complaints simultaneously and be aware of their possible interaction when outlining interventions. Nurses are able to facilitate early detection of health complaints negatively affecting quality of life by implementing more pro-active preventive work as well as a higher degree of thorough and systematic assessments. It also seems important to consider that older woman's and men's needs for high quality of life may differ.