What does spider stand for in research
Click here to ENTER
Cooke, A. Qualitative Health Research, 22 10 , — This tool offers a systematic strategy for searching for qualitative and mixed-methods research studies. Methley, A. These summaries are written by the NCCMT to condense and to provide an overview of the resources listed in the Registry of Methods and Tools and to give suggestions for their use in a public health context.
We have provided the resources and links as a convenience and for informational purposes only; they do not constitute an endorsement or an approval by McMaster University of any of the products, services or opinions of the external organizations, nor have the external organizations endorsed their resources and links as provided by McMaster University.
McMaster University bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external sites. Evidence-informed decision making EIDM checklist. Have you used this resource? Share your story! Description This tool offers a systematic strategy for searching for qualitative and mixed-methods research studies.
Tool on pages Use it with 6S Pyramid: Find evidence quickly and efficiently. Applying an equity lens to interventions. Looking to strengthen your skills?
What does spider stand for in research –
The evolving role of qualitative research in Cochrane intervention /19757.txt. The design choice depends on what your qualitative research design plan will be. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Risk factors for falling among community-based seniors. Resewrch Jun The intervention will first be tested for feasibility using a single-arm, prospective, explanatory mixed approach. The PEO question format is useful for qualitative research questions.
I wonder if there’s any evidence for that and whether it might help our patients? I wonder if playing music during the class would improve their retention of information and their experience of using the library. P First year students at an academic library attending face-to-face induction classes. O Increased retention of information and improved student comfort with the library. The SPIDER tool can be used when dealing with qualitative research questions – that is, when the research is about attitudes and experiences rather than scientifically measurable data.
While several medications can be problematic, the following four classes of PIPs have been specifically identified by Choosing Wisely Canada and the Canadian Deprescribing Network as targets for wiser uses in elders: proton pump inhibitors PPIs , sedative hypnotics such as benzodiazepines, antipsychotics for agitation and medications with a higher risk of hypoglycemia such as long-acting sulfonylureas. They will participate in Learning Collaboratives and work with QI Coaches to identify areas of improvement, develop strategies and implement changes to improve care.
Arms and Interventions. The SPIDER intervention will include a family physician-led inter-professional practice team participating in Learning Collaboratives over a period of 12 months, reviewing validated and comparable practice EMR data and working with a QI Coach to develop strategies and implement changes to improve care for elderly patients living with complex care needs and taking ten or more unique medications.
Physicians and their teams enrolled in this arm will follow the best scientific evidence available to provide standard care that is in the best interest of their patients.
Outcome Measures. Qualitative methods survey and focus group will be used to measure care providers’ perception of SPIDER, including the dimensions of acceptability, implementation, adaptation, integration, practicality and efficacy. The cost-utility of SPIDER will be measured as the incremental gain in quality of life measured by EuroQol-5D between the two arms in relation to intervention costs and by comparing the differences in investments and healthcare costs captured through EMR data and emergency room use and hospitalization.
Eligibility Criteria. Information from the National Library of Medicine Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Contacts and Locations. Information from the National Library of Medicine To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor. Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials. More Information. How the U. Health Aff Millwood. The concentration of health expenditures: an update.
Riley GF. Long-term trends in the concentration of Medicare spending. The duration of ambulatory visits to physicians. J Fam Pract. High-cost users of Ontario’s healthcare services. Healthc Policy. Med Care. Hochman M, Asch SM. J Gen Intern Med. Epub Feb The concentration of health care expenditures, revisited.
Who Are the High-Cost Users? PLoS One. The health care cost of dying: a population-based retrospective cohort study of the last year of life in Ontario, Canada. Lavan AH, Gallagher P. Predicting risk of adverse drug reactions in older adults. Ther Adv Drug Saf. A systematic review of interventions to deprescribe benzodiazepines and other hypnotics among older people.
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. Epub Apr Risk factors for falling among community-based seniors. J Patient Saf. Reduction of inappropriate benzodiazepine prescriptions among older adults through direct patient education: the EMPOWER cluster randomized trial.
Clinically important drug-disease interactions and their prevalence in older adults. Clin Ther. We have provided the resources and links as a convenience and for informational purposes only; they do not constitute an endorsement or an approval by McMaster University of any of the products, services or opinions of the external organizations, nor have the external organizations endorsed their resources and links as provided by McMaster University.
McMaster University bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external sites. Evidence-informed decision making EIDM checklist. What is a Literature Review? Background vs. Foreground Questions You may need to find answers to background questions i. The research questions on this page are for foreground questions. However, these terms may become more relevant in the future as more trials and interventions incorporate qualitative research [ 12 ].
Cooke et al. Although it has been used previously in a scoping review to investigate gaps in an evidence base on community participation in rural health care [ 13 ], SPIDER has not yet been tested and evaluated in a qualitative systematic narrative review context. The authors of this article recently completed a systematic review of the qualitative research investigating experiences of health care services for people with Multiple Sclerosis [ 14 ].
On embarking on this review topic we faced many of the difficulties commonly discussed in identifying qualitative literature on a given topic, and identified SPIDER as a potential way of overcoming some of these difficulties. In addition we wished to build and expand on the work of Cooke et al. No date restriction was imposed on searches as this was an original review.
Qualitative research, for this purpose, was defined by the Cochrane qualitative methods group [ 7 ] as using both a qualitative data collection method and qualitative analysis. Quantitative and mixed method studies were therefore excluded. We included studies that investigated adults aged 18 years old and older with a diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis, who had experience of utilising health care services at any time point.
There were no restrictions on subtype of Multiple Sclerosis, gender, ethnicity or frequency of use of health care. Health care in this sense referred to routine clinical care either state funded or privately funded not trial protocols or interventions. Excluded studies included studies that focussed on self-management and studies that investigated quality of life. Because of the focus on Multiple Sclerosis, studies were excluded if they used a mixed sample of various conditions e.
If an article had a section or subtheme on health care services but this was not the main research area of the article, then that article was included; however only data from the relevant subtheme were extracted and included in the findings. Additional exclusion criteria were articles that only described carer or health care professional experiences not patient experiences. Conference abstracts, editorials and commentaries were not included.
For this systematic search we developed a detailed search strategy in collaboration with a specialist librarian and information specialist. One reviewer judged titles and abstracts against the inclusion criteria. If a title and abstract met the inclusion criteria then full text copies of all articles were retrieved for further investigation.
Two authors reviewed these full text articles independently for relevance to the search aim i. Any disagreements were resolved via discussion. Data from included studies were extracted by both reviewers independently to ensure accuracy and then stored on a Microsoft Excel spread sheet. No ethical approval was required for this study.
All searches spanned from database inception until 12th October As in Cooke et al. As found in Cooke et al. PICO, PICOS and Articles which met the inclusion criteria after full text review are displayed in Table 6 [ 16 – 33 ]. Examination of the titles and abstracts of the identified articles resulted in the obtainment of 18 full text articles relevant at full text, across all databases and search tools.
Of the 18 relevant articles identified by the PICO tool, Different articles were found across different tools and databases as shown in Table 6.
All three databases were checked for all articles. Two papers were identified in all databases through all search tools. As previously described in Cooke et al.