Nataliya V Ivankova | PubMed Health

PubMed2004

Developing a Web site in primary care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: While content, navigability, and usability are essential qualities of effective Web sites, the health care literature contains limited discussion of these issues. This article describes how knowledge gained through focus groups, Web site searches, and individual interviews were used to develop and improve a health-related Web site. METHODS: We conducted 10 focus groups and searches of existing Web sites in preparation for developing a Web site about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We conducted 30 in-depth interviews to assess content, navigation, and usability of a new CRC Web site, using participants recruited from Michigan communities with a low incidence of CRC testing. Targeted participants were 50-70 years of age, had no prior experience with CRC testing, and had variable comfort levels with Internet use. RESULTS: Existing CRC screening Web sites uniformly use user-directed navigation and have little variation in content. Our study participants stimulated revisions in content, navigation, and usability. Revised content factors included comprehension, utility, and appeal. Navigation changes focused on logical transition between sections. Usability changes included user focus and clarity of graphics/ text. CONCLUSIONS: We found focus groups, Web site searches, and individual interviews useful in developing and testing content, navigation, and usability of a CRC screening Web site. These steps provide methodological procedures for developing and revising health-related Web sites.

Aged↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Designing a mixed methods study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Mixed methods or multimethod research holds potential for rigorous, methodologically sound investigations in primary care. The objective of this study was to use criteria from the literature to evaluate 5 mixed methods studies in primary care and to advance 3 models useful for designing such investigations. METHODS: We first identified criteria from the social and behavioral sciences to analyze mixed methods studies in primary care research. We then used the criteria to evaluate 5 mixed methods investigations published in primary care research journals. RESULTS: Of the 5 studies analyzed, 3 included a rationale for mixing based on the need to develop a quantitative instrument from qualitative data or to converge information to best understand the research topic. Quantitative data collection involved structured interviews, observational checklists, and chart audits that were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical procedures. Qualitative data consisted of semistructured interviews and field observations that were analyzed using coding to develop themes and categories. The studies showed diverse forms of priority: equal priority, qualitative priority, and quantitative priority. Data collection involved quantitative and qualitative data gathered both concurrently and sequentially. The integration of the quantitative and qualitative data in these studies occurred between data analysis from one phase and data collection from a subsequent phase, while analyzing the data, and when reporting the results. DISCUSSION: We recommend instrument-building, triangulation, and data transformation models for mixed methods designs as useful frameworks to add rigor to investigations in primary care. We also discuss the limitations of our study and the need for future research.

Health Services Research↗