PubMed · 15272968
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Ann Langley. 2004. Using questionnaires in qualitative interviews.. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819041403187
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Palliative care is a young discipline for research, though expert group opinions have been helpful. The lack of extended research programs addressing basic biological mechanisms of patients with advanced disease and short life expectancy nationally and internationally has created an increasingly strong call for research in palliative care. Obstacles and challenges include ethical concerns among the ill, establishment of a research agenda, the number of experienced researchers at the university level, lack of national and international leadership, and funding for palliative care research. Committed individuals have conducted important research, and if their efforts are combined with professional leadership, funding might be secured to establish the programs necessary to address palliative care research nationally and internationally.
An indicator is a measure used to express the behaviour of a system or part of a system. Indicators are widely used in the public sector, and there is widespread use of indicators for performance management of public health. In this paper, we define some of the terms used in relation to indicators. We outline some of the most important issues around selection and construction of indicators, and we include criteria for developing or assessing indicators. Use of inappropriate indicators can be misleading and can result in negative consequences for public health, and we point out the potential for pitfalls. Some misinterpretation of indicators could be avoided by use of better methods of presentation than the familiar league table. We use the example of a funnel plot to show a method of summarising indicator data which avoids ranking, and allows rapid identification of areas functioning outside normal limits.
OBJECTIVE: Anecdotal reports suggest that some state trauma systems are struggling to remain solvent while others appear stable in the current health care environment. The purpose of this research is to characterize the current structure and viability of state trauma systems in the U.S. METHODS: Expert panels were convened in all 50 states to characterize the current structure of trauma care and to identify strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats facing trauma care delivery in each state. RESULTS: States continue to value the formalization of trauma systems. System operations, evaluation/research methods and trauma leadership are highly valued by states with mature systems. However, all states consider their trauma system severely threatened by inadequate funding and difficulty recruiting and retaining physicians and nurses. CONCLUSION: Trauma care systems are valued and demonstrate potential for future expansion. However, economic shortfalls and retention of medical personnel threaten the viability of current systems across the U.S.