Add critical comments regarding Hagiwara et al's 2018 study protocol & Wagner et al's 2018 mixed methods study. by Jo Gilmartin https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn Made with fortitude en-us 2018-11-13 10:03:24 UTC 2019-01-27 19:13:46 UTC hello@padlet.com Hagiwara et a. offer a very interesting protocol with an exploratory sequential approach. However the methodological choice ( e.g. epistemology & chosen mm paradigm) are downplayed & would benefit from more weighting. Jo j_gilmartin https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/303640555 2018-11-13 10:18:04 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/303640555 Wagner et al. portray useful insights regarding FSWs/health risks displaying a convergent mm approach. Jo https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/303644829 2018-11-13 10:30:52 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/303644829 Hagiwara et al. 2018. https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324271835 On page 2, Figure 1 foregrounds a useful conceptual model portraying findings from previous research with respect to physician implicit racial bias impacting PO. 
On page 3, Figure 2 displays a helpful overview of the explorary sequential mm design. Jo

]]> 2019-01-25 11:30:17 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324271835 Hagiwara et al. 2018 https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324276410 Appropriate rationale and justification for using a mixed methods design to explore perceptions by black patients and use statistical analysis to compare these to outcomes]]> 2019-01-25 11:48:59 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324276410 Hagiwara et al 2018 https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324278650 Complicated and difficult to follow statistical analysis section. Also, some further justification of not enrolling patients into both the qualitative and quantitative portions would be helpful]]> 2019-01-25 12:00:29 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324278650 Wagner et al 2018 https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324279978 Present a simple and informative chart to display the mixed methods approach and how this will be integrated for analysis (p440)]]> 2019-01-25 12:07:15 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324279978 Wagner et al (2018) present data in a meaningful way using the quantitative network information and quotes from interviews, representing appropriate integration of data for a mixed methods approach https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324282048 2019-01-25 12:17:02 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324282048 Higiwara et al (2018) tsita https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324712877 As a protocol it is great, with an adecuate rationale for the use of mixed methods and gives a well documented details for qualitative and quantitative methods. For example, I really like Table 1 where objectives are linked with data sources, analysis and goals. However, it is difficult to critically evaluate the full quality of the work as they don't show results and interpretation. 

]]> 2019-01-27 18:50:07 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324712877 Higiwara et al (2018) tsita https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324713547 In the qualitative study, the data saturation justification is a little bit random (n=40, how to know? This is always a tricky question for me in qualitative studies).]]> 2019-01-27 18:56:02 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324713547 Wagner et al (2018) tsita https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324714012 Great way to integrate methods at three stages: data collection, data analysis and interpretation. Both methods complement each other. For example, the qualitative methods provide information about individuals who are missing from networks identified in the quantitative approach.]]> 2019-01-27 18:59:58 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324714012 Overall comments tsita https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324714402 Some key points to evaluate the quality of each study (using MMAT) got my attention. Divergences and inconsistencies between findings by different methods are generally not addressed nor explained. The studies also didn't mention explicitly the risk of non-response bias (noncontacts, refusals or reasons).]]> 2019-01-27 19:03:18 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324714402 Wagner et al (2018) tsita https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324714634 For the interviews, the description of size and inclusion criteria are clearly justified(eligibility). Moreover, they are conscious that they work with a small subsample of participants from a larger cohort study, stating that their findings should not be generalized to other populations.]]> 2019-01-27 19:05:08 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/dg9yl10t6jwn/wish/324714634