Patienten in der forensischen Psychiatrie sind während ihrer Behandlung häufig Aggressionen von Mitpatienten ausgesetzt. Uns sind jedoch keine Untersuchungen darüber bekannt, wie sich dies auf das Wohlbefinden der Patienten und den Behandlungsverlauf auswirkt. In dieser Studie befragten wir neun Patienten zu ihren Erfahrungen mit Viktimisierung während der psychiatrischen Zwangsbehandlung. Die Interviews wurden analysiert mit Hilfe eines Grounded-Theory-Ansatzes in Kombination mit Elementen der konsensuellen qualitativen Forschung und der interpretativen phänomenologischen Analyse. Aus den Daten ergaben sich drei Hauptthemen, nämlich situative Beschreibungen sowie intra- und interpersonelle Konsequenzen. Die Patienten waren nicht nur körperlicher Gewalt und verbaler Aggression durch andere Patienten ausgesetzt, sondern auch einem allgegenwärtigen Strom von mikroaggressiven Kommentaren. Die Möglichkeiten, diesen Situationen zu entkommen, waren begrenzt. Dies bedeutet, dass die Viktimisierungsprozesse, die bei den meisten Patienten bereits in einem früheren Lebensabschnitt begonnen haben, während der forensisch-psychiatrischen Behandlung fortgesetzt werden. Zu den intrapersonellen Folgen gehören Angst, Hypervigilanz, reaktive Aggression, Flashbacks sowie Vermeidungs- und Rückzugsverhalten. Zu den zwischenmenschlichen Auswirkungen zählen verstärkte Machtunterschiede zwischen den Patienten und nachteilige Behandlungsergebnisse, wie z. B. Probleme mit dem Selbstwertgefühl. Viktimisierungsprozesse werden in einem Umfeld, das sich auf die Risiken und die Behandlung von kriminellem Verhalten konzentriert, nicht immer rechtzeitig bemerkt. Daher ist ein höheres Maß an Traumasensibilität in der forensisch-psychiatrischen Versorgung erforderlich. Es werden Empfehlungen für die Umsetzung einer traumainformierten Versorgung gegeben.
DOCUMENT
In the course of our supervisory work over the years, we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called Frequently Asked Questions. This journal series of four articles intends to provide novice researchers with practical guidance for conducting high-quality qualitative research in primary care. By ‘novice’ we mean Master’s students and junior researchers, as well as experienced quantitative researchers who are engaging in qualitative research for the first time. This series addresses their questions and provides researchers, readers, reviewers and editors with references to criteria and tools for judging the quality of papers reporting on qualitative research. This first article describes the key features of qualitative research, provides publications for further learning and reading, and gives an outline of the series.
DOCUMENT
In the course of our supervisory work over the years, we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called frequently asked questions (FAQs). This series of four articles intends to provide novice researchers with practical guidance for conducting high-quality qualitative research in primary care. By ‘novice’ we mean Master’s students and junior researchers, as well as experienced quantitative researchers who are engaging in qualitative research for the first time. This series addresses their questions and provides researchers, readers, reviewers and editors with references to criteria and tools for judging the quality of qualitative research papers. This second article addresses FAQs about context, research questions and designs. Qualitative research takes into account the natural contexts in which individuals or groups function to provide an in-depth understanding of real-world problems. The research questions are generally broad and open to unexpected findings. The choice of a qualitative design primarily depends on the nature of the research problem, the research question(s) and the scientific knowledge one seeks. Ethnography, phenomenology and grounded theory are considered to represent the ‘big three’ qualitative approaches. Theory guides the researcher through the research process by providing a ‘lens’ to look at the phenomenon under study. Since qualitative researchers and the participants of their studies interact in a social process, researchers influence the research process. The first article described the key features of qualitative research, the third article will focus on sampling, data collection and analysis, while the last article focuses on trustworthiness and publishing.
DOCUMENT
In the course of our supervisory work over the years we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called frequently asked questions (FAQs). This series of four articles intends to provide novice researchers with practical guidance for conducting high-quality qualitative research in primary care. By ‘novice’ we mean Master’s students and junior researchers, as well as experienced quantitative researchers who are engaging in qualitative research for the first time. This series addresses their questions and provides researchers, readers, reviewers and editors with references to criteria and tools for judging the quality of qualitative research papers. The first article provides an introduction to this series. The second article focused on context, research questions and designs. The third article focused on sampling, data collection and analysis. This fourth article addresses FAQs about trustworthiness and publishing. Quality criteria for all qualitative research are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Reflexivity is an integral part of ensuring the transparency and quality of qualitative research. Writing a qualitative research article reflects the iterative nature of the qualitative research process: data analysis continues while writing. A qualitative research article is mostly narrative and tends to be longer than a quantitative paper, and sometimes requires a different structure. Editors essentially use the criteria: is it new, is it true, is it relevant? An effective cover letter enhances confidence in the newness, trueness and relevance, and explains why your study required a qualitative design. It provides information about the way you applied quality criteria or a checklist, and you can attach the checklist to the manuscript.
DOCUMENT
Het doel van de studie Consumenten Bewuster Eiwitrijk was om Nederlandse ouderen bewuster te maken van het belang van voldoende eiwit bij gezond en vitaal ouder worden. Verder wilden we meer inzicht krijgen in hoe we hen kunnen ondersteunen, zodat ze zelf in staat zijn om goede keuzes te maken.
DOCUMENT
In the course of our supervisory work over the years, we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called frequently asked questions (FAQs). This series of four articles intends to provide novice researchers with practical guidance for conducting high-quality qualitative research in primary care. By ‘novice’ we mean Master’s students and junior researchers, as well as experienced quantitative researchers who are engaging in qualitative research for the first time. This series addresses their questions and provides researchers, readers, reviewers and editors with references to criteria and tools for judging the quality of qualitative research papers. The second article focused on context, research questions and designs, and referred to publications for further reading. This third article addresses FAQs about sampling, data collection and analysis. The data collection plan needs to be broadly defined and open at first, and become flexible during data collection. Sampling strategies should be chosen in such a way that they yield rich information and are consistent with the methodological approach used. Data saturation determines sample size and will be different for each study. The most commonly used data collection methods are participant observation, face-to-face in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. Analyses in ethnographic, phenomenological, grounded theory, and content analysis studies yield different narrative findings: a detailed description of a culture, the essence of the lived experience, a theory, and a descriptive summary, respectively. The fourth and final article will focus on trustworthiness and publishing qualitative research.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Background. Fever in children is common and mostly caused by self-limiting infections. However, parents of febrile children often consult in general practice, in particular during out-of-hours care. To improve management, it is important to understand experiences of GPs managing these consultations. Objective. To describe GPs’ experiences regarding management of childhood fever during out-ofhours care. Methods. A descriptive qualitative study using purposeful sampling, five focus group discussions were held among 37 GPs. Analysis was based on constant comparative technique using open and axial coding. Results. Main categories were: (i) Workload and general experience; (ii) GPs’ perceptions of determinants of consulting behaviour; (iii) Parents’ expectations from the GP’s point of view; (iv) Antibiotic prescribing decisions; (v) Uncertainty of GPs versus uncertainty of parents and (vi) Information exchange during the consultation. GPs felt management of childhood fever imposes a considerable workload. They perceived a mismatch between parental concerns and their own impression of illness severity, which combined with time–pressure can lead to frustration. Diagnostic uncertainty is driven by low incidences of serious infections and dealing with parental demand for antibiotics is still challenging. Conclusion. Children with a fever account for a high workload during out-of-hours GP care which provides a diagnostic challenge due to the low incidence of serious illnesses and lacking longterm relationship. This can lead to frustration and drives antibiotics prescription rates. Improving information exchange during consultations and in the general public to young parents, could help provide a safety net thereby enhancing self-management, reducing consultations and workload, and subsequent antibiotic prescriptions.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: To gain a rich understanding of the experiences and opinions of patients, healthcare professionals, and policymakers regarding the design of OGR with structure, process, environment, and outcome components. Methods: Qualitative research based on the constructive grounded theory approach is performed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients who received OGR (n=13), two focus groups with healthcare professionals (n=13), and one focus group with policymakers (n=4). The Post-acute Care Rehabilitation quality framework was used as a theoretical background in all research steps. Results: The data analysis of all perspectives resulted in seven themes: the outcome of OGR focuses on the patient’s independence and regaining control over their functioning at home. Essential process elements are a patient-oriented network, a well-coordinated dedicated team at home, and blended eHealth applications. Additionally, closer cooperation in integrated care and refinement regarding financial, time-management, and technological challenges is needed with implementation into a permanent structure. All steps should be influenced by the stimulating aspect of the physical and social rehabilitation environment. Conclusion: The three perspectives generally complement each other to regain patients’ quality of life and autonomy. This study demonstrates an overview of the building blocks that can be used in developing and designing an OGR trajectory.
DOCUMENT
In childhood studies, the importance of including the perspectives of children and young people from a first-hand approach has been raised. Qualitative methods are suitable for doing so. However, usually most frequently used qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus groups, are not suitable for younger children, due to their developing verbal resources.Introducing methodological innovations, like non-verbal methods and relational analysis, among others, could help researchers include their views and access their meanings. In this course, we will discuss the main issues in qualitative research, with special consideration of the ones that could help incorporate children's perspectives. This course will be based on discussion, triggered by the reading of texts, the research experience of the professor (mainly with children and adolescents undergoing psychotherapy due to sexual abuse experiences), and the participants’ PhD projects.
DOCUMENT
Background: Peer review is at the heart of the scientific process. With the advent of digitisation, journals started to offer electronic articles or publishing online only. A new philosophy regarding the peer review process found its way into academia: the open peer review. Open peer review as practiced by BioMed Central (BMC) is a type of peer review where the names of authors and reviewers are disclosed and reviewer comments are published alongside the article. A number of articles have been published to assess peer reviews using quantitative research. However, no studies exist that used qualitative methods to analyse the content of reviewers’ comments. Methods: A focused mapping review and synthesis (FMRS) was undertaken of manuscripts reporting qualitative research submitted to BMC open access journals from 1 January – 31 March 2018. Free-text reviewer comments were extracted from peer review reports using a 77-item classification system organised according to three key dimensions that represented common themes and sub-themes. A two stage analysis process was employed. First, frequency counts were undertaken that allowed revealing patterns across themes/sub-themes. Second, thematic analysis was conducted on selected themes of the narrative portion of reviewer reports. Results: A total of 107 manuscripts submitted to nine open-access journals were included in the FMRS. The frequency analysis revealed that among the 30 most frequently employed themes “writing criteria” (dimension II) is the top ranking theme, followed by comments in relation to the “methods” (dimension I). Besides that, some results suggest an underlying quantitative mindset of reviewers. Results are compared and contrasted in relation to established reporting guidelines for qualitative research to inform reviewers and authors of frequent feedback offered to enhance the quality of manuscripts. Conclusions: This FMRS has highlighted some important issues that hold lessons for authors, reviewers and editors. We suggest modifying the current reporting guidelines by including a further item called “Degree of data transformation” to prompt authors and reviewers to make a judgment about the appropriateness of the degree of data transformation in relation to the chosen analysis method. Besides, we suggest that completion of a reporting checklist on submission becomes a requirement.
MULTIFILE
