Add some critical comments with respect to Tranvir Hasan et al. 2014. explanatory sequential study & Wolf et al's 2015 embedded mixed methods study. by Jo Gilmartin https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca Made with big dreams en-us 2018-11-13 10:40:20 UTC 2019-02-17 19:36:39 UTC hello@padlet.com The explanatory sequential MM design on IPV (Tranvir Hasan et al. ( 2014) portrays the QUANT strand as dominant, placing less weighting on the qual strand. On page 3108, links between the survey results & the developing the research question & sampling techniques for the qualitative phase (16 in-depth interviews) are avowed. However, this would benefit from greater elaboration. j_gilmartin https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/330750913 Great to see a mm study investigating IPV among women with disabilities.
The gap in the literature & study aim is clear to the reader.
Recruitment strategies are well articulated, yielding useful representation of women from 4 distinct districts (Bangladesh) including rural, urban & slum areas.
Ethical issues are considered too but I wonder how written consent was obtained from participants who had 'no education' 
Tables work well to illustrate demographic characteristics & results.
Good attempts are made to integrate the QUANT & qual findings.  The findings are very interesting ( upsetting to read, for me) & the interview data enriches the portrayal of the results. Cultural factors seem to be hugely influential & appear to trigger controlling/violent behaviour among the male partners.
The discussion is thoughtful with good linkage to the literature & shoring up how this study & data sets yielded might impact policy/ educational programmes.
Study limitation foreground useful points.  Jo.]]> 2019-02-13 11:36:52 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/330750913 The embedded MM study focusing on the predictors of stress & coping among US accelerated vs generic BSc Nursing students is indeed interesting. j_gilmartin https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/330757504 Two clear study objectives are shored up at the outset.
The background exploration of the literature is thoughtful & identifies a gap; especially in relation to the two groups of nursing students involved (lack of comparison) regarding specific stress predictors/ coping strategies.
Methods/design section offers a fairly fleeting portrayal of the embedded  design employed, the QUANT arm most powerful with the qualitative embedded in the questionnaires.  The qual strand appeared to draw out supportive information on stress & coping.This section would benefit from a stronger rationale for this approach. Also, what alternative approach could be employed for the embedded strand?
To facilitate data collection, 3 reliable/validated instruments were used & this adds robustness to the study. Although 5 open-ended questions asked participants about their personal concerns ( personal life & nursing programme), this is not hooked up to particular questionnaires.
The results are striking & tables are used effectively. Noteworthy was how 'history of depression' , low 'self-esteem' , year in the programme, positively related to stress.  Contrasting those with emotional support & high self-esteem experienced  less stress 
Positive attempts were made to integrate the QUANT & qual data, to some extent.
The discussion section is short but useful points are avowed throughout.
Study limitations would benefit from greater elaboration. Jo


]]> 2019-02-13 12:05:34 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/330757504 Hasan et al provide justification for using the QUAN-qual design and how they are using the quantitative arm to inform the design of the qualitative interviews. https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/331725228 Louise]]> 2019-02-15 13:58:21 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/331725228 Hasan et al justify excluding women not part of the Council of Disabled Women, however this means that the views of some of the most vulnerable parts of the population may have been missed https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/331738720 Louise]]> 2019-02-15 14:26:22 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/331738720 Hasan et al show attempts to integrate quant and qual data by providing percentages from the survey and backing up with quotations from the interviews. This provides the reader with an opportunity to gain a full understanding of the results. https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/331741211 Louise]]> 2019-02-15 14:31:33 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/331741211 Wolf et al quote Strauss and Corbin in their data analysis but talk about using 'conventional content analysis.' Did they use aspects of a grounded theory approach? If so, needs more clarification on this. https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/331744456 Louise]]> 2019-02-15 14:38:57 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/331744456 Wolf et al seem to present the quant and qual findings almost as separate entities https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/331745587 Louise]]> 2019-02-15 14:41:15 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/331745587 Good that Wolf et al present recommendations as a result of their findings https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/331746091 Louise]]> 2019-02-15 14:42:22 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/331746091 Tranvir Hasan et al. (2014) https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/332146819 Relevant topic, with a clear research gap. Great way to tackle the research question. A broader approach with quantitative methods, using surveys, and a more in-depth analysis using interviews and qualitative analysis. ]]> 2019-02-17 18:42:06 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/332146819 Tranvir Hasan et al. (2014) https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/332146932 Good method report. Recruiting and selection process was detailed. They stated that integration of the mixed-method data analysis was done during the interpretation of the study findings. They reported survey results and use quotes to complement and improve the analysis and understanding.

Finally, I really like when authors stated the limitation of the study.

]]> 2019-02-17 18:42:49 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/332146932 Wolf et al. (2015) https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/332153346 Interesting study. The aims of the research were clearly stated. Overall, I think that the quantitative arm was more robust (given the use of different instruments) than the qualitative stage. Strengths and limitations were reported. ]]> 2019-02-17 19:31:15 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/332153346 Wolf et al. (2015) https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/332153403 Not so good data integration and analysis, as the previous paper. It seems to me like two independent studies where no clear links were made until some short paragraphs in the discussion section. Could be a multi-method approach? Or just a better analysis and discussion section should be performed? ]]> 2019-02-17 19:31:46 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/332153403 Overall comment/question https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/332153512 A key issue for me is how to structure a mixed method paper considering the word-limit. There a lot of things that you want to report and explain as good as you can. You see different approaches and authors highlights some key points but overlook others. Maybe a checklist with some critical points that HAVE TO be included in each paper could be useful for us. ]]> 2019-02-17 19:32:36 UTC https://padlet.com/j_gilmartin/f2ucioxrf6ca/wish/332153512