Conectar
Implementation science helps generate approaches to expedite the uptake of evidence in practice. Mixed methods are commonly used in implementation research because they allow researchers to integrate distinct qualitative and quantitative methods and data sets to unravel the implementation process and context and design contextual tools for optimizing the implementation. To date, there has been limited discussion on how to ensure rigor in mixed methods implementation research.
To present Particularity, Engagement, Actionable Inferences, Reflexivity, and Legitimation (PEARL) as a practical tool for understanding various components of rigor in mixed methods implementation research.
This methodological discussion is based on a nurse-led mixed methods implementation study. The PEARL tool was developed based on an interpretive, critical reflection, and purposive reading of selected literature sources drawn from the researchers' knowledge, experiences of designing and conducting mixed methods implementation research, and published methodological papers about mixed methods, implementation science, and research rigor.
An exemplar exploratory sequential mixed methods study in nursing is provided to illustrate the application of the PEARL tool. The proposed tool can be a useful and innovative tool for researchers and students intending to use mixed methods in implementation research. The tool offers a straightforward approach to learning the key rigor components of mixed methods implementation research for application in designing and conducting implementation research using mixed methods.
Rigorous implementation research is critical for effective uptake of innovations and evidence-based knowledge into practice and policymaking. The proposed tool can be used as the means to establish rigor in mixed methods implementation research in nursing and health sciences.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis. RCT identification remains challenging because of limitations in their indexation in major databases and potential language bias. Scientific production in Latin American nursing is steadily increasing, but little is known about its design or main features. We aimed to identify the extent of evidence from RCTs in nursing conducted by Latin American research teams and evaluate their main characteristics, including potential risk of bias.
Scoping review with risk of bias assessment.
We conducted a scoping review including a comprehensive electronic search in five relevant databases. We completed a descriptive data analysis and a risk of bias assessment of eligible studies using Cochrane's guidance.
We identified 1784 references of which 47 were RCTs published in 40 journals. Twenty (42.6%) RCTs were published in journals in English. Chronic diseases were the most common health conditions studied (29.7%). Fifteen (31.9%) RCTs had a high risk of bias. Thirty (75%) journals were included in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) catalog and 5 (16.7%) were journals classified under nursing category. Twenty-one (52.5%) journals explicitly required CONSORT checklist recommendations for RCTs reporting.
Publication of RCTs in nursing by Latin American authors has increased. Most journals where RCTs are published are in English and not specific to nursing. Searches in journals of other disciplines may be necessary to facilitate identification of RCTs in nursing. CONSORT statements need to be actively promoted to facilitate rigorous methodology and reporting of RCTs.
This study highlights the need for an increased research focus on RCTs in nursing in Latin America, and the importance of enhancing the reporting quality of these studies to support evidence-based nursing practice.
FreshRSS 