Quality of reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research: a methodological review protocol

Peter C Emary^{1

2

3}, Kent J Stuber⁴, Lawrence Mbuagbaw^{5

6

7

8}, Mark Oremus^{5

9}, Paul S Nolet^{4

10}, Jennifer V Nash¹¹, Craig A Bauman^{12

13}, Carla Ciraco¹⁴, Rachel J Couban¹⁵, Jason W Busse^{5

11

15

16}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. emaryp@mcmaster.ca.
² Chiropractic Department, D'Youville College, Buffalo, NY, USA. emaryp@mcmaster.ca.
³ Private Practice, Cambridge, ON, Canada. emaryp@mcmaster.ca.
⁴ Department of Graduate Education and Research, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, ON, Canada.
⁵ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
⁶ Biostatistics Unit, Father Sean O'Sullivan Research Centre, St. Joseph's Healthcare-Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
⁷ Centre for the Development of Best Practices in Health, Yaundé, Cameroon.
⁸ Division of Global Health, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
⁹ School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
¹⁰ Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
¹¹ Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
¹² Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
¹³ The Centre for Family Medicine Family Health Team, Kitchener, ON, Canada.
¹⁴ Chiropractic Department, D'Youville College, Buffalo, NY, USA.
¹⁵ Michael G. DeGroote National Pain Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
¹⁶ Chronic Pain Centre of Excellence for Canadian Veterans, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

PMID: 34526065
PMCID: PMC8442283
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-021-00395-0

Quality of reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research: a methodological review protocol

Peter C Emary et al. Chiropr Man Therap. 2021.

. 2021 Sep 15;29(1):35.

doi: 10.1186/s12998-021-00395-0.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. emaryp@mcmaster.ca.
² Chiropractic Department, D'Youville College, Buffalo, NY, USA. emaryp@mcmaster.ca.
³ Private Practice, Cambridge, ON, Canada. emaryp@mcmaster.ca.
⁴ Department of Graduate Education and Research, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, ON, Canada.
⁵ Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
⁶ Biostatistics Unit, Father Sean O'Sullivan Research Centre, St. Joseph's Healthcare-Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
⁷ Centre for the Development of Best Practices in Health, Yaundé, Cameroon.
⁸ Division of Global Health, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
⁹ School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
¹⁰ Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
¹¹ Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
¹² Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
¹³ The Centre for Family Medicine Family Health Team, Kitchener, ON, Canada.
¹⁴ Chiropractic Department, D'Youville College, Buffalo, NY, USA.
¹⁵ Michael G. DeGroote National Pain Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
¹⁶ Chronic Pain Centre of Excellence for Canadian Veterans, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

PMID: 34526065
PMCID: PMC8442283
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-021-00395-0

Abstract

Background: Mixed methods designs are increasingly used in health care research to enrich findings. However, little is known about the frequency of use of this methodology in chiropractic research, or the quality of reporting among chiropractic studies using mixed methods.

Objective: To quantify the use and quality of mixed methods in chiropractic research, and explore the association of study characteristics (e.g., authorship, expertise, journal impact factor, country and year of publication) with reporting quality.

Methods: We will conduct a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature to identify all chiropractic mixed methods studies published from inception of each database to December 31, 2020. Articles reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods, or mixed qualitative methods, will be included. Pairs of reviewers will perform article screening, data extraction, risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), and appraisal of reporting quality using the Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) guideline. We will explore the correlation between GRAMMS and MMAT scores, and construct generalized estimating equations to explore factors associated with reporting quality.

Discussion: This will be the first methodological review to examine the reporting quality of published mixed methods studies involving chiropractic research. The results of our review will inform opportunities to improve reporting in chiropractic mixed methods studies. Our results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented publicly at conferences and as part of a doctoral thesis.

Keywords: Chiropractic; Methodological review; Mixed methods research; Reporting quality; Study protocol.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

PCE is supported by grants from McMaster University, the NCMIC Foundation, and the Canadian Chiropractic Research Foundation outside of the submitted work. All authors have no competing interests to declare.

Figures

**Fig. 1**
Search strategies for MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL), from the inception of each database to December 31, 2020

See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

1. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2018.
1. NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences. Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. 2nd ed. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health; 2018. https://www.obssr.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Best-Practices-f.... Accessed 22 Dec 2020.
1. Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs–principles and practices. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(6 Pt 2):2134–2156. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12117. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
1. Oakley A, Strange, V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J, RIPPLE Study Team. Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ. 2006;332(7538):413–6. - PMC - PubMed
1. Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ. 2009;339:b3496. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b3496. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Actions

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
Medical
- MedlinePlus Health Information

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

Quality of reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research: a methodological review protocol

Affiliations

Quality of reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research: a methodological review protocol

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement

Figures

References

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Medical