Report on methodological quality assessment of primary care and general practice research in China in 2021:Qualitative and mixed methods research section^☆

Abstract

Background: General practice, with its interdisciplinary nature, is well-suited to both qualitative and mixed-methods research. In recent years, the number of relevant academic publications in China has steadily increased, yet the overall quality has not been systematically assessed.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the methodological quality of qualitative and mixed-methods studies published in the field of primary care and general practice in China.

Methods: From August 2022 to April 2023, four investigators analyzed and assessed the methodological quality of qualitative and mixed methods research published in the field of primary care and general practice in China in 2021 using the qualitative assessment tools of Critical Appraisal Skills Programme(CASP) and MixedMethodsAppraisal Tool(MMAT), respectively. The researchers worked in pairs, independently conducting data extraction and quality evaluation.

Results: A total of 35 qualitative research and 9 mixed methods research were included. Key issues in qualitative studies included: insufficient attention to ethical considerations (65.71 %, 23/35), lack of discussion on participant recruitment (94.29 %, 33/35), limited consideration of the researcher-participant relationship (82.86 %, 29/35), sample sizes of <20 participants in 42.86 % (15/35) of studies, and lack of data saturation discussion in 25.71 % (9/35). Major issues in mixed-methods studies included a lack of clarity in research design type (8/9 studies) and ineffective integration of qualitative and quantitative components to answer the research question (8/9 studies).

Conclusion: The methodological quality of such qualitative and mixed methods research in primary care and general practice published in 2021 in China is still partially limited, especially in the areas of ethics, reliability, and data saturation in qualitative studies and integration of methods in mixed-methods research. Improved training in research methodology and adherence to design and reporting standards are essential to enhance the quality of future research and the robustness of evidence generated for decision-making.

Keywords

Qualitative research / Mixed methods research / Critical Appraisal Skills Programme / Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool / Methodological quality

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Declaration of competing interest

W.Y. is editorial member of Chinese General Practice Journal, C.X. is editor of Chinese General Practice Journal, they are not envolved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article. All authors declare that there are no competing interests.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

References

[1] State Council of the People’s Republic of China. Guidance on establishing a general practitioner system. (Chinese). 2011 Jul 1 [cited 2023 Apr 22]. Available from: https://www.nhc.gov.cn/wjw/gfxwj/201304/b77fdc4825954db68bb436276005bba3.shtml.

[2] Yang H, Han JJ, Xu YL. Development, challenges, and prospects of the general practitioner workforce in China. (Chinese). Chin Gen Pract. 2019; 22(19):2267-2279. doi: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2019.00.351.

[3] Hummers-Pradier E, Beyer M, Chevallier P, et al. Scope, research needs, and applicable methods in general practice research: a translated summary of the. Europ Gen Pract /Family Med Prim Healthcare Res Agenda. 2022; 25(9):1027-1039 (Chinese) Chinese General Practice. doi: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.02.006.

[4] Chen XL, Shao S, Wu Y, et al. A qualitative study on essential drug prescription behaviors of general practitioners in urban Beijing. (Chinese). Chin Gen Pract. 2021; 24(22):2814-2818. doi: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2021.00.190.

[5] Ben-Menahem S, Sialm A, Hachfeld A, et al. How do healthcare providers construe patient complexity? A qualitative study of multimorbidity in HIV outpatient clinical practice. BMJ Open. 2021; 11(11). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051013.

[6] Huang BS, Li H, Chen MR, et al. Theoretical framework construction on care complexity in Chinese hospitals: a grounded theory study. Int J Nurs Sci. 2019; 6(2):192-197. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnss.2019.03.011.

[7] Creswell JW, Fetters MD. Ivankova NV. Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2004; 2(1):7-12. doi: 10.1370/afm.104.

[8] Cao XY, Wang Y, Xu ZJ, et al. Research productivity on primary care and general practice in China in 2021. Chin General Pract. 2022; 25(34):4258 (Chinese)4232-40. doi: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.0701.

[9] The critical appraisal skills programme. CASP Qualitat. Stud. Checklist. 2023 Aug 24. [cited 2023 Aug 24]. Available from: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/.

[10] Hong QN, Gonzalez-Reyes A, Pluye P. Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). J Eval Clin Pract. 2018; 24(3):459-467. doi: 10.1111/jep.12884.

[11] Richards HM, Schwartz LJ. Ethics of qualitative research: are there special issues for health services research? Fam Pract. 2002; 19(2):135-139. doi: 10.1093/fampra/19.2.135.

[12] Chen XM. Qualitative Research Methods and Social Science Research. Beijing: Educational Science Press; 2000 (Chinese).

[13] Sargeant J. Qualitative research part II: participants, analysis, and quality assurance. J Grad Med Educ. 2012; 4(1):1-3. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-11-00307.1.

[14] Korstjens I, Moser A. Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: trustworthiness and publishing. Eur J Gen Pract. 2018; 24(1):120-124. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092.

[15] Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19(6):349-357. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.

[16] Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Routledge: Sociology Press; 2017.

[17] Hennink M, Kaiser BN. Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: a systematic review of empirical tests. Soc Sci Med. 2022; 292:114523. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523.

[18] Vasileiou K, Barnett J, Thorpe S, et al. Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18(1):148. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7.

[19] Creswell J, Clark VP. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Southend Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2006.

[20] Liu YS, Chu HL, Peng K, et al. Factors associated with the use of a salt substitute in rural China. JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4(12). doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.37745.