Search

Abstract Background The habitual "any other comments" general open question at the end of structured questionnaires has the potential to increase response rates, elaborate responses to closed questions, and allow respondents to identify new issues not captured in the closed questions. However, we believe that many researchers have collected such data and failed to analyse or present it. Discussion General open questions at the end of structured questionnaires can present a problem because of their uncomfortable status of being strictly neither qualitative nor quantitative data, the consequent lack of clarity around how to analyse and report them, and the time and expertise needed to do so. We suggest that the value of these questions can be optimised if researchers start with a clear understanding of the type of data they wish to generate from such a question, and employ an appropriate strategy when designing the study. The intention can be to generate depth data or 'stories' from purposively defined groups of respondents for qualitative analysis, or to produce quantifiable data, representative of the population sampled, as a 'safety net' to identify issues which might complement the closed questions. Summary We encourage researchers to consider developing a more strategic use of general open questions at the end of structured questionnaires. This may optimise the quality of the data and the analysis, reduce dilemmas regarding whether and how to analyse such data, and result in a more ethical approach to making best use of the data which respondents kindly provide.

Background: Demand is labelled 'clinically unnecessary' when patients do not need the levels of clinical care or urgency provided by the service they contact. Objective: To identify programme theories which seek to explain why patients make use of emergency and urgent care that is subsequently judged as clinically unnecessary. Design: Realist review. Methods: Papers from four recent systematic reviews of demand for emergency and urgent care, and an updated search to January 2017. Programme theories developed using Context‐Mechanism‐Outcome chains identified from 32 qualitative studies and tested by exploring their relationship with existing health behaviour theories and 29 quantitative studies. Results: Six mechanisms, based on ten interrelated programme theories, explained why patients made clinically unnecessary use of emergency and urgent care: (a) need for risk minimization, for example heightened anxiety due to previous experiences of traumatic events; (b) need for speed, for example caused by need to function normally to attend to responsibilities; (c) need for low treatment‐seeking burden, caused by inability to cope due to complex or stressful lives; (d) compliance, because family or health services had advised such action; (e) consumer satisfaction, because emergency departments were perceived to offer the desired tests and expertise when contrasted with primary care; and (f) frustration, where patients had attempted and failed to obtain a general practitioner appointment in the desired timeframe. Multiple mechanisms could operate for an individual. Conclusions: Rather than only focusing on individuals' behaviour, interventions could include changes to health service configuration and accessibility, and societal changes to increase coping ability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Inadequate pain management in EDs is a worldwide problem, yet there has been little progress in understanding how pain management can be improved. There is only weak evidence and limited rationale to support interventions to improve pain management. We used naturalistic, qualitative methods to understand the factors that influence how pain is managed within the adult ED.Methods: We used a multiple case study design incorporating 143-hour non-participant observation, documentary analysis and semistructured interviews with 37 staff and 19 patients at three EDs in the North of England between 2014 and 2016. We analysed data using thematic analysis.Results: Our analysis demonstrated that pain management was not well aligned with the core priorities of the ED and was overlooked when other works took priority. We identified that (1) pain management was not perceived to be a key organisational priority for which staff were held accountable and staff had limited awareness of their performance, (2) pain management was not a core component of ED education and training, (3) ED processes and structures were not aligned with pain management and pain reassessment was overlooked unless staff escalated pain management outside of normal processes and (4) staff held embedded beliefs that conceptualised pain management as distinct from core priorities and limited their capacity to improve. However, EDs were able to improve pain management by aligning processes of pain management with other core works, particularly patient flow (eg, nurse-initiated analgesia at triage).Implications: EDs may be able to improve pain management by ensuring pain management processes align with key ED priorities. Undertaking multifaceted changes to structures and processes may enable staff to improve pain management and develop a culture in which pain management can be prioritised more easily. Future interventions need to be compatible with the wider work of the ED and enable patient flow in order to be adopted and maintained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and Aims: Alcohol Intoxication Management Services (AIMS) provide basic care for intoxication and minor injuries, have been increasingly implemented in urban areas characterised by a large number of premises licensed for the sale and on-site consumption of alcohol, with the goal of reducing alcohol's burden on emergency services, including referrals into hospital emergency departments. The acceptability of new health services to users is a key effectiveness outcome. The aim was to describe patient experiences when attending an AIMS and document the acceptability of AIMS to users.Design and Methods: A sequential mixed methods study was undertaken involving semi-structured interviews with participants from four AIMS followed by a survey of users recruited from six AIMS.Results: Interviewees (N = 19) were positive about the care they received in AIMS and appreciated the friendly, non-judgemental atmosphere. Survey respondents rated their experience in AIMS positively (on a 0 to 10 Likert scale, mean = 9.34, SD = 1.38, n = 188). Frequently given reasons for attendance included drinking alcohol (57%) and minor injury (42%); 24% said they would have attended the emergency department had the AIMS not been available and 6% said they would have preferred to go to the emergency department; 31% indicated they would have felt unsafe without the AIMS.Discussion and Conclusions: AIMS are acceptable to users. AIMS are likely to address previously unmet demand for a safe space within the night-time environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a major social and public health problem affecting people from different cultures and societies. Much research has been undertaken to understand the phenomenon, its determinants, and its consequences in numerous countries. However, there is a paucity of research on IPV in many areas of the world including Pakistan. The present study aimed to develop a theory of the meaning and process of IPV from the perspective of Pakistani men and women living in and outside Pakistan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: : Appraising the quality of studies included in systematic reviews combining qualitative and quantitative evidence is challenging. To address this challenge, a critical appraisal tool was developed: the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The aim of this paper is to present the enhancements made to the MMAT. DEVELOPMENT: : The MMAT was initially developed in 2006 based on a literature review on systematic reviews combining qualitative and quantitative evidence. It was subject to pilot and interrater reliability testing. A revised version of the MMAT was developed in 2018 based on the results from usefulness testing, a literature review on critical appraisal tools and a modified e-Delphi study with methodological experts to identify core criteria. TOOL DESCRIPTION: : The MMAT assesses the quality of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. It focuses on methodological criteria and includes five core quality criteria for each of the following five categories of study designs: (a) qualitative, (b) randomized controlled, (c) nonrandomized, (d) quantitative descriptive, and (e) mixed methods. CONCLUSION: : The MMAT is a unique tool that can be used to appraise the quality of different study designs. Also, by limiting to core criteria, the MMAT can provide a more efficient appraisal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]