Mixed Methods in Clinical Trials: Understanding the Effects of Guided Imagery for Chronic Pain Using a Concurrent Nested Design

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/150618
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Mixed Methods in Clinical Trials: Understanding the Effects of Guided Imagery for Chronic Pain Using a Concurrent Nested Design
Abstract:
Mixed Methods in Clinical Trials: Understanding the Effects of Guided Imagery for Chronic Pain Using a Concurrent Nested Design
Conference Sponsor:Sigma Theta Tau International
Conference Year:2006
Author:Lewandowski, Wendy, PhD, APRN, BC
P.I. Institution Name:Kent State University
Title:Assistant Professor
Mixed methods designs in intervention studies are gaining popularity, as they can provide a broader understanding of the phenomenon of interest.  A mixed method, concurrent nested design (experimental + descriptive) was used to study the effects of a guided imagery intervention with persons experiencing chronic pain.  Participants were randomly assigned to treatment or control group.  Participants in the treatment group (n=21) used guided imagery over a 4-day period; those in the control group (n=21) were monitored.  Measures of pain (VAS; MPQ; Verbal descriptions) were obtained simultaneously at five repeated daily intervals for participants in both groups.  Social desirability, imaging ability, and analgesic intake were measured but did not meet criteria for use as covariates.  Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed separately, and combined during the integration phase. First, a RM-MANCOVA was performed. There was a significant interaction for treatment by trials, F(3,117) = 2.717, p F(1, 41) = 6.297, p F(1, 41) = 3.802, p While this mixed methods study allowed for the rigors of a RCT, it also offered a way to collect in-depth qualitative data that supported a more detailed explanation of findings, a fuller understanding of the conceptual links in the research model, and a more sensitive measure of pain.  However, because the two methods received unequal priority in the study, a disadvantage may have existed when the final results were interpreted.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Sigma Theta Tau International

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleMixed Methods in Clinical Trials: Understanding the Effects of Guided Imagery for Chronic Pain Using a Concurrent Nested Designen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/150618-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Mixed Methods in Clinical Trials: Understanding the Effects of Guided Imagery for Chronic Pain Using a Concurrent Nested Design</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Sigma Theta Tau International</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2006</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Lewandowski, Wendy, PhD, APRN, BC</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">Kent State University</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value">Assistant Professor</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">wlewando@kent.edu</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">Mixed methods designs in intervention studies are gaining popularity, as they can provide a broader understanding of the phenomenon of interest.&nbsp; A mixed method, concurrent nested design (experimental + descriptive) was used to study the effects of a guided imagery intervention with persons experiencing chronic pain.&nbsp; Participants were randomly assigned to treatment or control group.&nbsp; Participants in the treatment group (n=21) used guided imagery over a 4-day period; those in the control group (n=21) were monitored.&nbsp; Measures of pain (VAS; MPQ; Verbal descriptions) were obtained simultaneously at five repeated daily intervals for participants in both groups.&nbsp; Social desirability, imaging ability, and analgesic intake were measured but did not meet criteria for use as covariates.&nbsp; Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed separately, and&nbsp;combined during the integration phase. First, a RM-MANCOVA was performed. There was a significant interaction for treatment by trials, F(3,117) = 2.717, p F(1, 41) = 6.297, p F(1, 41) = 3.802, p&nbsp;While this mixed methods study allowed for the rigors of a RCT, it also offered a way to collect in-depth qualitative data that supported a more detailed explanation of findings,&nbsp;a fuller understanding of the conceptual links in the research model, and&nbsp;a more sensitive measure of pain.&nbsp; However, because the two methods&nbsp;received unequal priority in the study,&nbsp;a disadvantage may have existed when the final results were interpreted.</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T10:38:08Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T10:38:08Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipSigma Theta Tau Internationalen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.