Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • 8 - The Future of Rapid Ethnographies

  • Cecilia Vindrola-Padros, University College London
  • Book:
    Rapid Ethnographies
    Published online:
    26 November 2020
    Print publication:
    21 January 2021, pp 105-112

  • Summary

    Even though rapid methods are not new, two recent reviews on the use of rapid qualitative methods in healthcare have shown a recent increase in their popularity (Johnson and Vindrola-Padros 2017; Vindrola-Padros and Vindrola-Padros 2018). One of the main findings of both reviews, however, was the prevalence of gaps in the reporting of the study design and process of implementation. The authors called for the development of guidelines or a reporting framework to ensure rapid research has a robust design and is reported in detail in publications. One of the topics of Chapter 8 is future plans to develop these standards. The chapter also explores recent developments in methodological innovation that have resulted in new ‘spin-offs’ of rapid ethnographies and a proposal for the development of training programmes on the topic. The chapter ends with an agenda for the future development of the field of rapid ethnography.

  • A TOOL TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF REPORTING PUBLISHED ECONOMIC ANALYSES

  • Karen Gerard, Janelle Seymour, Irenie Smoker
  • Journal:
    International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 16 / Issue 1 / January 2000
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    04 May 2001, pp. 100-110

  • Objectives: To test the feasibility of obtaining a baseline level of quality of reporting for cost-utility analysis (CUA) studies using the British Medical Journal economic submissions checklist, test interrater reliability of this tool, and discuss its longer term implications.

    Methods: CUA studies in peer-reviewed English language journals in 1996, assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist, a quality index, and interrater reliability correlations.

    Results: Forty-three CUA studies were assessed, with 23 checklist items acceptable and 10 items inadequate. Lowest quality scores were reported in specialist medical journals. Proportional agreement between assessors was over 80%.

    Conclusions: The British Medical Journal checklist is a feasible tool to collect baseline information on the quality of reporting in journals other than the British Medical Journal. Editors of specialist medical journals are in greatest need of economic guidance. If handled carefully, they might consider adopting the British Medical Journal checklist.