Disease-modifying therapies for spinal muscular atrophy: Family experience, ethical considerations, and the role of social determinants of health.
Authors: Xiao L, Djordjevic D, Kang S, Gonorazky H, Chiang J, Ambreen M, Nigro E, Law E, Weinstock L, Amin R, McCradden MD
Journal: Journal of neuromuscular diseases
mental health
psychology
open access
Abstract
Mixed‐methods research (MMR) is an established approach to inquiry across a wide range of disciplines, and although a recent AMEE guide to MMR stated that ‘Interest in MMR is only recently emerging in HPE’,
this was not our experience as individual researchers, journal editors and reviewers. In fact, when we conducted a quick scan of the literature, we found MMR articles in medical education (ME) dating back to the 1990s. Not only had we seen many MMR studies conducted in ME being published over the years, but we also had longstanding questions about the quality of MMR. Many articles claiming to use mixed methods—most often reporting a qualitative and a quantitative component—did not actually describe mixing or integrating methods, or any other features, at any point in the research process. This was despite clear guidance that integration lies ‘at the heart of the mixed methods enterprise’, guidance moreover which has been echoed in the ME context., In short, it seemed that many studies claiming to be MMR did not adhere to the fundamental principles of MMR and would be more accurately categorized as multiple methods (where integration is not required). It seemed that although studies identifying as MMR have been consistently present in ME research for several decades, the approach remains surprisingly limited, indeed impoverished, from a methodological perspective. Thus, the trigger for this study was our sense that, although MMR is popular in terms of the number of studies claiming to use it, the standard for rigour, grounding and reporting MMR in ME has been significantly lacking, and its potential has not been properly considered or realized.
this was not our experience as individual researchers, journal editors and reviewers. In fact, when we conducted a quick scan of the literature, we found MMR articles in medical education (ME) dating back to the 1990s. Not only had we seen many MMR studies conducted in ME being published over the years, but we also had longstanding questions about the quality of MMR. Many articles claiming to use mixed methods—most often reporting a qualitative and a quantitative component—did not actually describe mixing or integrating methods, or any other features, at any point in the research process. This was despite clear guidance that integration lies ‘at the heart of the mixed methods enterprise’, guidance moreover which has been echoed in the ME context., In short, it seemed that many studies claiming to be MMR did not adhere to the fundamental principles of MMR and would be more accurately categorized as multiple methods (where integration is not required). It seemed that although studies identifying as MMR have been consistently present in ME research for several decades, the approach remains surprisingly limited, indeed impoverished, from a methodological perspective. Thus, the trigger for this study was our sense that, although MMR is popular in terms of the number of studies claiming to use it, the standard for rigour, grounding and reporting MMR in ME has been significantly lacking, and its potential has not been properly considered or realized.