Qualitative methods in a randomised controlled trial: The role of an integrated qualitative process evaluation in providing evidence to discontinue the intervention in one arm of a trial of a decision support tool

Quality and Safety in Health Care

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 224-229

  Murtagh, M J ^a   Thomson, R G ^a   May, C R ^a   Rapley, T ^a   Heaven, B R ^a   Graham, R H ^b   Kaner, E F ^a   Stobbart, L ^a   Eccles, M P ^a  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEART ATRIUM FIBRILLATION; HUMAN; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT EDUCATION; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; TREATMENT WITHDRAWAL; VALIDITY; AGED; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; FEMALE; INTERVIEW; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLING; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; VIDEORECORDING;

ANTICOAGULANT AGENT;

AGED; ANTICOAGULANTS; ATRIAL FIBRILLATION; CLINICAL TRIALS DATA MONITORING COMMITTEES; COMPREHENSION; DECISION MAKING; DECISION MAKING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, CLINICAL; FEMALE; GAMBLING; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RISK ASSESSMENT; VIDEO RECORDING;

EID: 34250809626     PISSN: 14753898     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2006.018499     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick A, Kinmonth AL, et al. Framework for design and evolution of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ 2000;321:694-6.
2. Bradley F, Wiles R, Kinmonth AL, et al. Development and evaluation of complex interventions in health services research: case study of Southampton Health Integrated Care Project (SHIP). BMJ 1999;318:711-15.
3. Medical Research Council. A framework for development and evaluation of RCTs for complex interventions to improve health. London: Medical Research Council, 2000.
4. Welton A, Hepworth J, Collins N, et al. Decision-making about hormone replacement therapy by women in England and Scotland. Climacteric 2004;7:41-9.
5. Thomson R, Robinson A, Greenaway J, et al. Development and description of a decision analysis based decision support tool for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11:25-31.
6. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, et al. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 1999;3:1-164.
7. Timmermans D, Kievit J, Bockel H. Improving the quality of surgeons' treatment decisions: a comparison of clinical decision making with a computerised evidence-based decision analytical model. Qual Health Care 2001;10:4-9.
8. Peu I, Dowie J, Clarke A, et al. Development and preliminary evaluation of a clinical guidance programme for the decision about prophylactic oophorectomy in women undergoing a hysterectomy. Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11:32-9.
9. Heaven BR, Murtagh MJ, Rapley T, et al. Patients or research subjects? A qualitative study of participation in a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention. Patient Educ Couns 2006;62:260-70.
10. Thomson RG, Eccles MP, Steen IN, et al. A patient decision aid to support shared decision-making on anti-thrombotic treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation: randomised controlled trial. Qual Saf Health Care 2007;16:216-23.
11. Glaser BG. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl 1965;12:436-45.
12. Heath C, Hindmarsh J. Analysing interaction: video, ethnography and situated conduct. In: May T, ed. Qualitative research in action. London: Sage, 2002:99-121.
13. Goffman E. The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin Books, 1990 (1959).
14. Rapley T, May CR, Heaven BR, et al. Doctor-patient interaction in a randomised controlled trial of an evidence-based decision-support tool: the problem of simulating everyday clinical encounters. Soc Sci Med 2006;62:2267-78.
15. Toroyan T, Oakley A, Laing G, et al. The impact of day care on socially disadvantaged families: an example of the use of process evaluation within a randomized controlled trial. Child: Care, Health Dev 2004;30:691-8.
16. Flottorp S, Havelsrud K, Oxman A D. Process evaluation of a cluster randomized trial of tailored interventions to implement guidelines in primary care - why is it so hard to change practice? Family Pract 2003;20:333-9.
17. Finch T, May C R, Mair F, et al. Integrating service development with evaluation in telehealthcare: an ethnographic study. BMJ 2003;327:1205-9.
18. Green, J, Britten N. Qualitative research and evidence based medicine. BMJ 1998;316:1230-2.
19. Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, et al. Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technol Assess 1998;2:iii-ix, 1-274.
20. Riley T, Hawe P, Shiell A. Contested ground: how should qualitative evidence inform the conduct of a community intervention trial? J Health Serv Res Policy 2005;10:103-10.