Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Choosing a suitable sample size in qualitative research is an area of conceptual debate and practical uncertainty. That sample size principles, guidelines and tools have been developed to enable researchers to set, and justify the acceptability of, their sample size is an indication that the issue constitutes an important marker of the quality of qualitative research. Nevertheless, research shows that sample size sufficiency reporting is often poor, if not absent, across a range of disciplinary fields. Methods A systematic analysis of single-interview-per-participant designs within three health-related journals from the disciplines of psychology, sociology and medicine, over a 15-year period, was conducted to examine whether and how sample sizes were justified and how sample size was characterised and discussed by authors. Data pertinent to sample size were extracted and analysed using qualitative and quantitative analytic techniques. Results Our findings demonstrate that provision of sample size justifications in qualitative health research is limited; is not contingent on the number of interviews; and relates to the journal of publication. Defence of sample size was most frequently supported across all three journals with reference to the principle of saturation and to pragmatic considerations. Qualitative sample sizes were predominantly – and often without justification – characterised as insufficient (i.e., ‘small’) and discussed in the context of study limitations. Sample size insufficiency was seen to threaten the validity and generalizability of studies’ results, with the latter being frequently conceived in nomothetic terms. Conclusions We recommend, firstly, that qualitative health researchers be more transparent about evaluations of their sample size sufficiency, situating these within broader and more encompassing assessments of data adequacy . Secondly, we invite researchers critically to consider how saturation parameters found in prior methodological studies and sample size community norms might best inform, and apply to, their own project and encourage that data adequacy is best appraised with reference to features that are intrinsic to the study at hand. Finally, those reviewing papers have a vital role in supporting and encouraging transparent study-specific reporting.

Background Web-based surveys may have advantages related to the speed and cost of data collection as well as data quality. However, they may be biased by low and selective participation. We predicted that such biases would distort point-estimates such as average symptom level or prevalence but not patterns of associations with putative risk-factors. Methods A structured psychiatric interview was administered to parents in two successive surveys of child mental health. In 2003, parents were interviewed face-to-face, whereas in 2006 they completed the interview online. In both surveys, interviews were preceded by paper questionnaires covering child and family characteristics. Results The rate of parents logging onto the web site was comparable to the response rate for face-to-face interviews, but the rate of full response (completing all sections of the interview) was much lower for web-based interviews. Full response was less frequent for non-traditional families, immigrant parents, and less educated parents. Participation bias affected point estimates of psychopathology but had little effect on associations with putative risk factors. The time and cost of full web-based interviews was only a quarter of that for face-to-face interviews. Conclusions Web-based surveys may be performed faster and at lower cost than more traditional approaches with personal interviews. Selective participation seems a particular threat to point estimates of psychopathology, while patterns of associations are more robust.

Residency applications via virtual-interview could potentially mitigate the extensive cost and time required for customary in-person interviews. We outline the perception of medical students and residents on the use of virtual-interview for residency applications in lieu of in-person interviews. We obtained 1824 responses from medical students and residents through an online questionnaire between March2019-Feb2020 in Texas-United States. The survey had 11 statements (five in favor of in-person interviews and 6 in favor of virtual interviews) that respondents could rank on a 5-point Likert scale. All statements' scores were summed based on the response given by each participant to create a total score between 11 and 55. The perception of the two groups was analyzed using an independent sample T-test and ANOVA. We received a total of 1711 responses from medical students and 113 from medical residents. Respondents were more female (82.2% of medical students and 47.8% of residents), with a mean age of 22.87±3.42 years old for medical students and 28.72±4.35 years old for residents. Both groups preferred in-person interviews; however, the residents were significantly more in favor (P = 0.03). Both groups agree that virtual-interviews should be as an option, though this was considerably higher in the medical students (P = 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, \"travel distance\" and \"type of medical school\" had a significant impact on choosing the virtual-interviews in both groups (p<0.01). In-person interviews are favored by both medical students and residents compared to virtual-interview services in normal circumstances. However, both groups agree that programs should offer the option of having virtual-interviews as an available choice. Distance to an interview location and the type of medical school were the factors that had a significant impact on perception of using virtual-interviews. Knowing about the applicants' attitude toward residency interviews and the national circumstances are essential when preparing the interview guides. Our findings are limited by the small sample size and the low response rate. Further extensive studies are warranted to better understand the perception of residency applicants toward virtual-interviews to improve the interview process in the United States.

Background Reliable, valid, and easy-to-administer instruments to identify possible caseness and to provide proxies for clinical diagnoses are needed in epidemiological research on child and adolescent mental health. The aim of this study is to provide further validity data for a parent telephone interview focused on Autism - Tics, Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD), and other Comorbidities (A-TAC), for which reliability and preliminary validation data have been previously reported. Methods Parents of 91 children clinically diagnosed at a specialized Child Neuropsychiatric Clinic, 366 control children and 319 children for whom clinical diagnoses had been previously assigned were interviewed by the A-TAC over the phone. Interviewers were blind to clinical information. Different scores from the A-TAC were compared to the diagnostic outcome. Results Areas under ROC curves for interview scores as predictors of clinical diagnoses were around 0.95 for most disorders, including autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD), tic disorders, developmental coordination disorders (DCD) and learning disorders, indicating excellent screening properties. Screening cut-off scores with sensitivities above 0.90 (0.95 for ASD and AD/HD) were established for most conditions, as well as cut-off scores to identify proxies to clinical diagnoses with specificities above 0.90 (0.95 for ASD and AD/HD). Conclusions The previously reported validity of the A-TAC was supported by this larger replication study using broader scales from the A-TAC-items and a larger number of diagnostic categories. Short versions of algorithms worked as well as larger. Different cut-off levels for screening versus identifying proxies for clinical diagnoses are warranted. Data on the validity for mood problems and oppositional defiant/conduct problems are still lacking. Although the A-TAC is principally intended for epidemiological research and general investigations, the instrument may be useful as a tool to collect information in clinical practice as well.

Background Verbal autopsy is an increasingly important methodology for assigning causes to otherwise uncertified deaths, which amount to around 50% of global mortality and cause much uncertainty for health planning. The World Health Organization sets international standards for the structure of verbal autopsy interviews and for cause categories that can reasonably be derived from verbal autopsy data. In addition, computer models are needed to efficiently process large quantities of verbal autopsy interviews to assign causes of death in a standardised manner. Here, we present the InterVA-5 model, developed to align with the WHO-2016 verbal autopsy standard. This is a harmonising model that can process input data from WHO-2016, as well as earlier WHO-2012 and Tariff-2 formats, to generate standardised cause-specific mortality profiles for diverse contexts. The software development involved building on the earlier InterVA-4 model, and the expanded knowledge base required for InterVA-5 was informed by analyses from a training dataset drawn from the Population Health Metrics Research Collaboration verbal autopsy reference dataset, as well as expert input. Results The new model was evaluated against a test dataset of 6130 cases from the Population Health Metrics Research Collaboration and 4009 cases from the Afghanistan National Mortality Survey dataset. Both of these sources contained around three quarters of the input items from the WHO-2016, WHO-2012 and Tariff-2 formats. Cause-specific mortality fractions across all applicable WHO cause categories were compared between causes assigned in participating tertiary hospitals and InterVA-5 in the test dataset, with concordance correlation coefficients of 0.92 for children and 0.86 for adults. The InterVA-5 model’s capacity to handle different input formats was evaluated in the Afghanistan dataset, with concordance correlation coefficients of 0.97 and 0.96 between the WHO-2016 and the WHO-2012 format for children and adults respectively, and 0.92 and 0.87 between the WHO-2016 and the Tariff-2 format respectively. Conclusions Despite the inherent difficulties of determining “truth” in assigning cause of death, these findings suggest that the InterVA-5 model performs well and succeeds in harmonising across a range of input formats. As more primary data collected under WHO-2016 become available, it is likely that InterVA-5 will undergo minor re-versioning in the light of practical experience. The model is an important resource for measuring and evaluating cause-specific mortality globally.

Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has forced upon all academic institutions to conduct virtual interviewing (VI) instead of face-to-face interviewing (FTFI) this interviewing cycle. The purpose of this systematic review was to understand the process of VI, its effectiveness as an alternative to FTFI, and the experiences of applicants and institutions with VI. We also share best practice strategies for applicants and institutions in VI preparation. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus and CINAHL databases were searched through May 2020. Articles in English evaluating the effectiveness of VI were included, without applying any date limits. Two reviewers selected articles and extracted data. Of the 934 articles screened, 22 articles underwent full-text article analysis to include 15 studies. There were 4 studies that reported the use of VI as a screening tool. 11 studies completely replaced FTFI with VI. Most applicants could appropriately convey themselves through VI. Most applicants and interviewing programs expressed reservations about VI's use as an alternative to FTFI. There is dearth of evidence supporting the efficacy of VI. There is an opportunity for potential research at multi-institutional level to gain better understanding of the efficacy of VI. The knowledge obtained from this systematic review has the potential of helping applicants and institutions in preparing for VI process. Additionally, authors propose supportive strategies to help prepare applicants and institutions for VI.

IntroductionThe multiple mini interview (MMI) has been incorporated into the holistic review process in the selection of students to US medical schools. The MMI has been used to evaluate interpersonal and intrapersonal attributes which are deemed as necessary for future physicians. We hypothesized that there would be little difference in overall MMI evaluation data compared with traditional interview ratings.MethodsThe University of North Carolina School of Medicine developed an interview process that included a traditional interview and MMI format during the 2019 admissions cycle. Evaluation data along with key demographic variables for 608 MD program applicants were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical analyses.ResultsThe MMI format slightly favored female over male applicants (p = 0.002) but did not select for or against applicants based on age, race/ethnicity, underserved/rural area upbringing, or indicators of disadvantage. Out of 608 applicants, 356 (59%) completed a post-interview survey in which the experience was positively rated.DiscussionBased on our experience, the use of a hybrid model of traditional interviews complemented with MMI stations provided greater details in the assessment of medical school applicants while obtaining equivalent data and acceptability amongst applicants.

Motivational Interviewing (MI), a counseling style initially used to treat addictions, increasingly has been used in health care and public health settings. This manuscript provides an overview of MI, including its theoretical origins and core clinical strategies. We also address similarities and differences with Self-Determination Theory. MI has been defined as person-centered method of guiding to elicit and strengthen personal motivation for change . Core clinical strategies include, e.g., reflective listening and eliciting change talk. MI encourages individuals to work through their ambivalence about behavior change and to explore discrepancy between their current behavior and broader life goals and values. A key challenge for MI practitioners is deciding when and how to transition from building motivation to the goal setting and planning phases of counseling. To address this, we present a new three-phase model that provides a framework for moving from WHY to HOW; from building motivation to more action oriented counseling, within a patient centered framework.

Interviewing patients over the course of their illness can give a much better picture of their experience than single interviews, but the approach is rarely used. Scott Murray and colleagues explain how to get the most from it