A Web-Based Decision Tool to Improve Contraceptive Counseling for Women With Chronic Medical Conditions: Protocol For a Mixed Methods Implementation Study

Justine P Wu, Laura J Damschroder, Michael D Fetters, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher, Benjamin F Crabtree, Shawna V Hudson, Mack T Ruffin IV, Juliana Fucinari, Minji Kang, L Susan Taichman, John W Creswell, Justine P Wu, Laura J Damschroder, Michael D Fetters, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher, Benjamin F Crabtree, Shawna V Hudson, Mack T Ruffin IV, Juliana Fucinari, Minji Kang, L Susan Taichman, John W Creswell

Abstract

Background: Women with chronic medical conditions, such as diabetes and hypertension, have a higher risk of pregnancy-related complications compared with women without medical conditions and should be offered contraception if desired. Although evidence based guidelines for contraceptive selection in the presence of medical conditions are available via the United States Medical Eligibility Criteria (US MEC), these guidelines are underutilized. Research also supports the use of decision tools to promote shared decision making between patients and providers during contraceptive counseling.

Objective: The overall goal of the MiHealth, MiChoice project is to design and implement a theory-driven, Web-based tool that incorporates the US MEC (provider-level intervention) within the vehicle of a contraceptive decision tool for women with chronic medical conditions (patient-level intervention) in community-based primary care settings (practice-level intervention). This will be a 3-phase study that includes a predesign phase, a design phase, and a testing phase in a randomized controlled trial. This study protocol describes phase 1 and aim 1, which is to determine patient-, provider-, and practice-level factors that are relevant to the design and implementation of the contraceptive decision tool.

Methods: This is a mixed methods implementation study. To customize the delivery of the US MEC in the decision tool, we selected high-priority constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Theoretical Domains Framework to drive data collection and analysis at the practice and provider level, respectively. A conceptual model that incorporates constructs from the transtheoretical model and the health beliefs model undergirds patient-level data collection and analysis and will inform customization of the decision tool for this population. We will recruit 6 community-based primary care practices and conduct quantitative surveys and semistructured qualitative interviews with women who have chronic medical conditions, their primary care providers (PCPs), and clinic staff, as well as field observations of practice activities. Quantitative survey data will be summarized with simple descriptive statistics and relationships between participant characteristics and contraceptive recommendations (for PCPs), and current contraceptive use (for patients) will be examined using Fisher exact test. We will conduct thematic analysis of qualitative data from interviews and field observations. The integration of data will occur by comparing, contrasting, and synthesizing qualitative and quantitative findings to inform the future development and implementation of the intervention.

Results: We are currently enrolling practices and anticipate study completion in 15 months.

Conclusions: This protocol describes the first phase of a multiphase mixed methods study to develop and implement a Web-based decision tool that is customized to meet the needs of women with chronic medical conditions in primary care settings. Study findings will promote contraceptive counseling via shared decision making and reflect evidence-based guidelines for contraceptive selection.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03153644; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03153644 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6yUkA5lK8).

Keywords: birth control; chronic disease; contraception; decision support techniques; implementation science; mobile apps; multiple chronic conditions; primary care physicians; qualitative research.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Justine P Wu, Laura J Damschroder, Michael D Fetters, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher, Benjamin F Crabtree, Shawna V Hudson, Mack T Ruffin IV, Juliana Fucinari, Minji Kang, L Susan Taichman, John W Creswell. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 18.04.2018.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Multiphase mixed methods design. PCP: primary care provider; RCT: randomized controlled trial; CC: chronic condition.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Conceptual model to guide design of decision tool. PCP: primary care provider; CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

    1. Office of Disease Prevention Health Promotion 2014. [2017-12-10]. Healthy people 2020 leading health indicators: progress update .
    1. Finer LB, Zolna MR. Shifts in intended and unintended pregnancies in the United States, 2001-2008. Am J Public Health. 2014 Feb;104(Suppl 1):S43–8. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301416.
    1. Cheng D, Schwarz EB, Douglas E, Horon I. Unintended pregnancy and associated maternal preconception, prenatal and postpartum behaviors. Contraception. 2009 Mar;79(3):194–8. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.09.009.
    1. D'Angelo DV, Gilbert BC, Rochat RW, Santelli JS, Herold JM. Differences between mistimed and unwanted pregnancies among women who have live births. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2004;36(5):192–7. doi: 10.1363/psrh.36.192.04.
    1. Sonfield A, Kost K, Gold RB, Finer LB. The public costs of births resulting from unintended pregnancies: national and state-level estimates. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2011 Jun;43(2):94–102. doi: 10.1363/4309411.
    1. Gavin L, Moskosky S, Carter M, Curtis K, Glass E, Godfrey E, Marcell A, Mautone-Smith N, Pazol K, Tepper N, Zapata L, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Providing quality family planning services: recommendations of CDC and the U.S. Office of Population Affairs. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2014 Apr 25;63(RR-04):1–54.
    1. Gavin L, Frederiksen B, Robbins C, Pazol K, Moskosky S. New clinical performance measures for contraceptive care: their importance to healthcare quality. Contraception. 2017 Sep;96(3):149–57. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2017.05.013.
    1. Boghossian NS, Yeung E, Albert PS, Mendola P, Laughon SK, Hinkle SN, Zhang C. Changes in diabetes status between pregnancies and impact on subsequent newborn outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 May;210(5):431.e1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.12.026.
    1. Kiely M, El-Mohandes AA, Gantz MG, Chowdhury D, Thornberry JS, El-Khorazaty MN. Understanding the association of biomedical, psychosocial and behavioral risks with adverse pregnancy outcomes among African-Americans in Washington, DC. Matern Child Health J. 2011 Dec;15(Suppl 1):S85–95. doi: 10.1007/s10995-011-0856-z.
    1. Murphy VE, Clifton VL, Gibson PG. Asthma exacerbations during pregnancy: incidence and association with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Thorax. 2006 Feb;61(2):169–76. doi: 10.1136/thx.2005.049718.
    1. Alves E, Azevedo A, Rodrigues T, Santos AC, Barros H. Impact of risk factors on hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, in primiparae and multiparae. Ann Hum Biol. 2013;40(5):377–84. doi: 10.3109/03014460.2013.793390.
    1. Berg CJ, Harper MA, Atkinson SM, Bell EA, Brown HL, Hage ML, Mitra AG, Moise KJ, Callaghan WM. Preventability of pregnancy-related deaths: results of a state-wide review. Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Dec;106(6):1228–34. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000187894.71913.e8.
    1. Berg CJ, Mackay AP, Qin C, Callaghan WM. Overview of maternal morbidity during hospitalization for labor and delivery in the United States: 1993-1997 and 2001-2005. Obstet Gynecol. 2009 May;113(5):1075–81. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181a09fc0.
    1. Hayes DK, Fan AZ, Smith RA, Bombard JM. Trends in selected chronic conditions and behavioral risk factors among women of reproductive age, behavioral risk factor surveillance system, 2001-2009. Prev Chronic Dis. 2011 Nov;8(6):A120.
    1. Farr SL, Hayes DK, Bitsko RH, Bansil P, Dietz PM. Depression, diabetes, and chronic disease risk factors among US women of reproductive age. Prev Chronic Dis. 2011 Nov;8(6):A119.
    1. Ward BW, Schiller JS. Prevalence of multiple chronic conditions among US adults: estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2010. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013 Apr 25;10:E65. doi: 10.5888/pcd10.120203.
    1. Chor J, Rankin K, Harwood B, Handler A. Unintended pregnancy and postpartum contraceptive use in women with and without chronic medical disease who experienced a live birth. Contraception. 2011 Jul;84(1):57–63. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.11.018.
    1. Gawron LM, Gawron AJ, Kasper A, Hammond C, Keefer L. Contraceptive method selection by women with inflammatory bowel diseases: a cross-sectional survey. Contraception. 2014 May;89(5):419–25. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.12.016.
    1. Maslow BL, Morse CB, Schanne A, Loren A, Domchek SM, Gracia CR. Contraceptive use and the role of contraceptive counseling in reproductive-aged women with cancer. Contraception. 2014 Jul;90(1):79–85. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.03.002.
    1. Schwarz EB, Postlethwaite D, Hung Y, Lantzman E, Armstrong MA, Horberg MA. Provision of contraceptive services to women with diabetes mellitus. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Feb;27(2):196–201. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1875-6.
    1. Schwarz EB, Braughton MY, Riedel JC, Cohen S, Logan J, Howell M, Thiel de Bocanegra H. Postpartum care and contraception provided to women with gestational and preconception diabetes in California's Medicaid program. Contraception. 2017 Aug 24;96(6):432–38. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2017.08.006.
    1. Schwarz EB, Maselli J, Norton M, Gonzales R. Prescription of teratogenic medications in United States ambulatory practices. Am J Med. 2005 Nov;118(11):1240–9. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.02.029.
    1. Eisenberg DL, Stika C, Desai A, Baker D, Yost KJ. Providing contraception for women taking potentially teratogenic medications: a survey of internal medicine physicians' knowledge, attitudes and barriers. J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Apr;25(4):291–7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1215-2.
    1. Centers for Disease Control [2018-01-30]. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2010 Summary Tables .
    1. Ornstein SM, Jenkins RG, Litvin CB, Wessell AM, Nietert PJ. Preventive services delivery in patients with chronic illnesses: parallel opportunities rather than competing obligations. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(4):344–9. doi: 10.1370/afm.1502.
    1. Akers AY, Gold MA, Borrero S, Santucci A, Schwarz EB. Providers' perspectives on challenges to contraceptive counseling in primary care settings. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2010 Jun;19(6):1163–70. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2009.1735.
    1. Dehlendorf C, Levy K, Ruskin R, Steinauer J. Health care providers' knowledge about contraceptive evidence: a barrier to quality family planning care? Contraception. 2010 Apr;81(4):292–8. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2009.11.006.
    1. Russo JA, Chen BA, Creinin MD. Primary care physician familiarity with U.S. medical eligibility for contraceptive use. Fam Med. 2015 Jan;47(1):15–21.
    1. Curtis KM, Tepper NK, Marchbanks PA. Putting risk into perspective: the US medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2011 Jun;12(2):119–25. doi: 10.1007/s11154-011-9177-1.
    1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee opinion no. 505: understanding and using the U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria For Contraceptive Use, 2010. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Sep;118(3):754–60. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182310cd3.
    1. Biggs MA, Harper CC, Malvin J, Brindis CD. Factors influencing the provision of long-acting reversible contraception in California. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Mar;123(3):593–602. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000137.
    1. Harper CC, Henderson JT, Raine TR, Goodman S, Darney PD, Thompson KM, Dehlendorf C, Speidel JJ. Evidence-based IUD practice: family physicians and obstetrician-gynecologists. Fam Med. 2012 Oct;44(9):637–45.
    1. Rubin SE, Fletcher J, Stein T, Segall-Gutierrez P, Gold M. Determinants of intrauterine contraception provision among US family physicians: a national survey of knowledge, attitudes and practice. Contraception. 2011 May;83(5):472–8. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.10.003.
    1. Wu JP, Gundersen DA, Pickle S. Are the contraceptive recommendations of family medicine educators evidence-based? A CERA survey. Fam Med. 2016 Dec;48(5):345–52.
    1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 121: Long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jul;118(1):184–96. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318227f05e.
    1. Nelson AL. Intrauterine device practice guidelines: medical conditions. Contraception. 1998 Sep;58(3 Suppl):59S–63S; quiz 72S.
    1. Suri V, Aggarwal N, Kaur R, Chaudhary N, Ray P, Grover A. Safety of intrauterine contraceptive device (copper T 200 B) in women with cardiac disease. Contraception. 2008 Oct;78(4):315–8. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.05.006.
    1. Bitzer J, Cupanik V, Fait T, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Grob P, Oddens BJ, Pawelczyk L, Unzeitig V. Factors influencing women's selection of combined hormonal contraceptive methods after counselling in 11 countries: results from a subanalysis of the CHOICE study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2013 Oct;18(5):372–80. doi: 10.3109/13625187.2013.819077.
    1. Harper CC, Brown BA, Foster-Rosales A, Raine TR. Hormonal contraceptive method choice among young, low-income women: how important is the provider? Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Dec;81(3):349–54. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.08.010.
    1. Rosenberg MJ, Waugh MS, Burnhill MS. Compliance, counseling and satisfaction with oral contraceptives: a prospective evaluation. Fam Plann Perspect. 1998;30(2):89–92, 104.
    1. Dehlendorf C, Levy K, Kelley A, Grumbach K, Steinauer J. Women's preferences for contraceptive counseling and decision making. Contraception. 2013 Aug;88(2):250–6. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.10.012.
    1. Langston AM, Rosario L, Westhoff CL. Structured contraceptive counseling--a randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Dec;81(3):362–7. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.08.006.
    1. Melo J, Peters M, Teal S, Guiahi M. Adolescent and young women's contraceptive decision-making processes: choosing “The Best Method for Her”. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2015 Aug;28(4):224–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2014.08.001.
    1. Donnelly KZ, Foster TC, Thompson R. What matters most? The content and concordance of patients' and providers' information priorities for contraceptive decision making. Contraception. 2014 Sep;90(3):280–7. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.04.012.
    1. George TP, DeCristofaro C, Dumas BP, Murphy PF. Shared decision aids: increasing patient acceptance of long-acting reversible contraception. Healthcare (Basel) 2015 Apr 10;3(2):205–18. doi: 10.3390/healthcare3020205.
    1. Marshall C, Nuru-Jeter A, Guendelman S, Mauldon J, Raine-Bennett T. Patient perceptions of a decision support tool to assist with young women's contraceptive choice. Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Feb;100(2):343–348. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.08.022.
    1. French RS, Wellings K, Cowan FM. How can we help people to choose a method of contraception? The case for contraceptive decision aids. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2009 Oct;35(4):219–20. doi: 10.1783/147118909789587169.
    1. Alston C, Berger Z, Brownlee S, Elwyn G, Fowler FJ, Hall LK, Montori V, Moulton B, Paget L, Shebel B, Singerman R, Walker J, Wynia M, Henderson D. Washington, DC: Discussion Paper, Institute of Medicine; [2017-11-30]. Shared decision-making strategies for best care: Patient decision aids .
    1. Dehlendorf C, Grumbach K, Schmittdiel JA, Steinauer J. Shared decision making in contraceptive counseling. Contraception. 2017 May;95(5):452–455. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.12.010.
    1. Kim YM, Kols A, Martin A, Silva D, Rinehart W, Prammawat S, Johnson S, Church K. Promoting informed choice: evaluating a decision-making tool for family planning clients and providers in Mexico. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2005 Dec;31(4):162–71. doi: 10.1363/ifpp.31.162.05.
    1. Chewning B, Mosena P, Wilson D, Erdman H, Potthoff S, Murphy A, Kuhnen KK. Evaluation of a computerized contraceptive decision aid for adolescent patients. Patient Educ Couns. 1999 Nov;38(3):227–39.
    1. Garbers S, Meserve A, Kottke M, Hatcher R, Ventura A, Chiasson MA. Randomized controlled trial of a computer-based module to improve contraceptive method choice. Contraception. 2012 Oct;86(4):383–90. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.01.013.
    1. Marshall C, Nuru-Jeter A, Guendelman S, Mauldon J, Raine-Bennett T. Patient perceptions of a decision support tool to assist with young women's contraceptive choice. Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Feb;100(2):343–348. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.08.022.
    1. Dehlendorf C, Fitzpatrick J, Steinauer J, Swiader L, Grumbach K, Hall C, Kuppermann M. Development and field testing of a decision support tool to facilitate shared decision making in contraceptive counseling. Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Jul;100(7):1374–1381. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.02.009.
    1. Crabtree BF, Miller WL. Doing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications; 1999. Using codes and code manuals; pp. 163–178.
    1. Fetters MD, Freshwaters D. The 1+ 1= 3 Integration Challenge. J Mix Methods Res. 2015;9(2):115–117. doi: 10.1177/1558689815581222.
    1. Creswell J, Plano Clark VL. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 2011.
    1. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015 Apr 21;10:53. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.
    1. Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices. Health Serv Res. 2013 Dec;48(6 Pt 2):2134–56. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12117.
    1. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Leech NL. Validity and qualitative research: An oxymoron? Qual Quant. 2007;41:233–49. doi: 10.1007/s11135-006-9000-3.
    1. Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015 Sep;42(5):533–44. doi: 10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y.
    1. Chen M, Culwell K. The Global Library of Women's Medicine. [2017-12-15]. Contraception for women with medical problems .
    1. Borrero S, Schwarz EB, Creinin M, Ibrahim S. The impact of race and ethnicity on receipt of family planning services in the United States. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2009;18(1):91–6. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2008.0976.
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [2017-12-01]. Practice-Based Research Networks .
    1. Creswell JW. A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications; 2015. Sampling and integration issues; pp. 105–120.
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services . Washington, D.C: 2015. [2017-10-17]. Multiple chronic conditions: a strategic framework. Optimum health quality of life for individuals with multiple chronic conditions .
    1. Ornstein SM, Nietert PJ, Jenkins RG, Litvin CB. The prevalence of chronic diseases and multimorbidity in primary care practice: a PPRNet report. J Am Board Fam Med. 2013;26(5):518–24. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2013.05.130012.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention United States Medical Eligibility Criteria (US MEC) for Contraceptive Use 2016 .
    1. Dehlendorf C, Fitzpatrick J, Steinauer J, Swiader L, Grumbach K, Hall C, Kuppermann M. Development and field testing of a decision support tool to facilitate shared decision making in contraceptive counseling. Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Jul;100(7):1374–1381. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.02.009.
    1. Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R, O'Connor D, Patey A, Ivers N, Foy R, Duncan EM, Colquhoun H, Grimshaw JM, Lawton R, Michie S. A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci. 2017 Jun 21;12(1):77. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0605-9.
    1. Wyatt KD, Anderson RT, Creedon D, Montori VM, Bachman J, Erwin P, LeBlanc A. Women's values in contraceptive choice: a systematic review of relevant attributes included in decision aids. BMC Womens Health. 2014 Feb 13;14(1):28. doi: 10.1186/1472-6874-14-28.
    1. Madden T, Secura GM, Nease RF, Politi MC, Peipert JF. The role of contraceptive attributes in women's contraceptive decision making. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jul;213(1):46.e1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.01.051.
    1. Ross L. Understanding reproductive justice: Transforming the pro-choice movement. 2006;36:14–19. doi: 10.2307/20838711.
    1. Stern AM. Eugenics, sterilization, and historical memory in the United States. Hist Cienc Saude Manguinhos. 2016 Dec;23Suppl 1(Suppl 1):195–212. doi: 10.1590/S0104-59702016000500011.
    1. Stern AM. Sterilized in the name of public health: race, immigration, and reproductive control in modern California. Am J Public Health. 2005 Jul;95(7):1128–38. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.041608.
    1. Witteman HO, Scherer LD, Gavaruzzi T, Pieterse AH, Fuhrel-Forbis A, Chipenda DS, Exe N, Kahn VC, Feldman-Stewart D, Col NF, Turgeon AF, Fagerlin A. Design features of explicit values clarification methods: a systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2016 May;36(4):453–71. doi: 10.1177/0272989X15626397.
    1. Prochaska JO. Decision making in the transtheoretical model of behavior change. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(6):845–9. doi: 10.1177/0272989X08327068.
    1. Hall KS. The Health Belief Model can guide modern contraceptive behavior research and practice. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2012;57(1):74–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-2011.2011.00110.x.
    1. Crabtree BF, Miller WL, Stange KC. Understanding practice from the ground up. J Fam Pract. 2001 Oct;50(10):881–7.
    1. Jaén CR, Crabtree BF, Palmer RF, Ferrer RL, Nutting PA, Miller WL, Stewart EE, Wood R, Davila M, Stange KC. Methods for evaluating practice change toward a patient-centered medical home. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8 Suppl 1:S9–20; S92. doi: 10.1370/afm.1108.
    1. Goldblatt H, Karnieli-Miller O, Neumann M. Sharing qualitative research findings with participants: study experiences of methodological and ethical dilemmas. Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Mar;82(3):389–95. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.12.016.
    1. Borkan J. Immersion/Crystallization. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, editors. Doing Qualitative Research. 2 edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2009. pp. 179–94.
    1. Creswell J, Clark V. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2011. Analyzing and interpreting data in mixed methods research; pp. 203–250.
    1. Marshall C, Rossman G. Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications; 2016. Managing, analyzing, and interpreting data.
    1. Crabtree BF, Miller WL. Using codes and code manuals: a template organizing style of interpretation. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, editors. Doing Qualitative Research. 2 edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1999.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa