دانلود مقاله مطالعات مداخله ای ترکیبی در نوجوانان مبتلا به اختلالات رفتاری
چکیده
مقدمه
مطالب و روش ها
نتایج
بحث
نتیجه گیری
منابع
Abstract
Introduction
Material and methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
چکیده
زمینه
مطالعات مداخله‌ای با روش‌های ترکیبی می‌تواند دقت ارزیابی‌های مداخله‌ای در زمینه اختلالات عاطفی و رفتاری را با کمک به محققان برای دستیابی به درک دقیق‌تری از نحوه عملکرد یک مداخله خاص، بهبود بخشد. با این حال، هیچ مطالعه ای تا به امروز به طور سیستماتیک روش های انجام و گزارش این نوع مطالعات را بررسی نکرده است.
هدف
بررسی ویژگی‌های روش‌شناختی و شیوه‌های گزارش‌دهی موجود در مطالعات مداخله‌ای با روش‌های ترکیبی در کودکان و نوجوانان مبتلا به اختلالات عاطفی و رفتاری.
روش
بررسی روش‌شناسی مبتنی بر جستجوی سیستماتیک از آغاز تا جولای 2021 در Embase، Medline، PsycINFO، و SCOPUS، و جستجوی دستی در هفت مجله.
نتایج
ما 30 مطالعه پیدا کردیم که اکثر آنها از سال 2019 منتشر شده‌اند. این مطالعات الگوهای مختلفی از استفاده از روش‌های ترکیبی را گزارش کردند که بینش منحصربه‌فردی را که محققان می‌توانند با استفاده از این رویکرد به دست آورند، نشان می‌دهند. ما چندین روش را شناسایی کردیم که نویسندگان می‌توانند توجیه استفاده از روش ترکیبی، توصیف طرح مورد استفاده، و شواهد ادغام اجزای کمی و کیفی را با وضوح بیشتری گزارش کنند.
نتیجه
ما توصیه هایی برای بهبود کیفیت گزارش دهی مطالعات مداخله ای ترکیبی در زمینه اختلالات عاطفی و رفتاری ارائه می کنیم.
توجه! این متن ترجمه ماشینی بوده و توسط مترجمین ای ترجمه، ترجمه نشده است.
Abstract
Background
Mixed methods intervention studies can improve the accuracy of interventional evaluations in the field of emotional and behavioral disorders by helping researchers gain a more nuanced understanding of how a particular intervention works. However, no studies to date have systematically examined the ways in which this type of studies have been carried out and reported.
Aim
To examine the methodological features and reporting practices found in mixed methods intervention studies in children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders.
Method
Methodological review based on a systematic search from inception to July 2021 in Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS, and a hand search in seven journals.
Results
We found 30 studies, most of them published since 2019. These studies reported several patterns of mixed methods use which illustrated the unique insights that researchers can gain by using this approach. We identified several ways that authors could more clearly report the justification for using a mixed methods approach, the description of the design used, and the evidence of integration of the quantitative and qualitative components.
Conclusion
We make recommendations for improving the reporting quality of mixed methods intervention studies in the field of emotional and behavioral disorders.
Introduction
Emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) in children and adolescents require timely and effective interventions to avoid later adverse manifestations. In a recent review of EBD interventions in these populations, McKenna et al. (2021) argued that evaluations should have robust quantitative designs in order to generate high-quality, evidence-based knowledge that can inform future practice. However, these authors did not consider using mixed methods designs despite an extensive body of literature that describes a number of ways in which the efficiency, rigor, and comprehensiveness of intervention study designs is improved when qualitative approaches are combined with randomized studies and quasi-experimental approaches (Fetters and Molina-Azorin, 2020, Johnson and Schoonenboom, 2016, Lewin et al., 2009, O’Cathain, 2018, O’Cathain et al., 2013). Qualitative methods can help overcome some methodological limitations of quantitative research designs by helping researchers understand the context and conditions that affect interventions, and by affording them a more nuanced insight into how, why, and under what circumstances a particular intervention has worked.
Conclusions
While the reporting quality was acceptable in most of the included studies, their findings could have been enhanced by more detailed reporting of the justification for the use of mixed methods and the type of mixed methods design used. Based on this review, we were able to identify several ways in which authors of mixed methods intervention designs can strengthen the significance of their study findings. In addition, as O’Cathain et al. (2007) observed in a key review of integration practices, by more explicitly reporting the integration of the quantitative and qualitative findings, researchers might have been able to better exploit the potential afforded by using a mixed methods approach to achieve a more comprehensive and nuanced evaluation of an intervention targeting children and adolescents with EBD.