BackgroundIn health, organizational participatory research (OPR) refers to health organization members participating in research decisions, with university researchers, throughout a study. This non-academic partner contribution to the research may take the form of consultation or co-construction. A drawback of OPR is that it requires more time from all those involved, compared to non-participatory research approaches; thus, understanding the added value of OPR, if any, is important. Thus, we sought to assess whether the OPR approach leads to benefits beyond what could be achieved through traditional research.MethodsWe identified, selected, and appraised OPR health literature, and at each stage, two team members independently reviewed and coded the literature. We used quantitative content analysis to transform textual data into reliable numerical codes and conducted a logistic regression to test the hypothesis that a co-construction type OPR study yields extra benefits with a greater likelihood than consultation-type OPR studies.ResultsFrom 8873 abstracts and 992 full text papers, we distilled a sample of 107 OPR studies. We found no difference between the type of organization members’ participation and the likelihood of exhibiting an extra benefit. However, the likelihood of an OPR study exhibiting at least one extra benefit is quadrupled when the impetus for the study comes from the organization, rather than the university researcher(s), or the organization and the university researcher(s) together (OR = 4.11, CI = 1.12–14.01). We also defined five types of extra benefits.ConclusionsThis review describes the types of extra benefits OPR can yield and suggests these benefits may occur if the organization initiates the OPR. Further, this review exposes a need for OPR authors to more clearly describe the type of non-academic partner participation in key research decisions throughout the study. Detailed descriptions will benefit others conducting OPR and allow for a re-examination of the relationship between participation and extra benefits in future reviews.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0648-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Mixed methods (MM) involve combining qualitative (QUAL) and quantitative (QUAN) methods in program evaluation, primary research, and literature review (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011;Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007;Pluye & Hong, 2014;. They are being increasingly used, specifically in health sciences. Over the years, several strategies to integrate QUAL and QUAN phases, results, and data have been proposed but rarely conceptualized and never tested in a comprehensive manner (Greene, 2008). For each MM researcher and teacher, one of the challenges is to plan, conduct, and report simply and clearly what are the applied specific MM strategies and their combinations. As a contribution for addressing this issue, the purpose of this article is to propose and test a conceptual framework of the combinations of strategies that are used in primary MM research.In this article, to be considered MM, studies had to meet the following criteria (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011): (a) at least one QUAL method and one QUAN method are combined; (b) each method is used rigorously in accordance to the generally accepted criteria in the area (or tradition) of research invoked (e.g., ethnography and randomized controlled trial); and (c) the combination of the methods is carried out at minimum through a MM design (defined a priori, or emerging) and the integration of the QUAL and QUAN phases, results, and data. The QUAL and QUAN methods can be also combined (but not necessarily) with regard to the data collection (mixed instrumentation), the literature review (mixed studies review justifying the MM research questions and design), and the MM team members' interpretations of sciences in terms of epistemology, ontology, teleology, and methodology (hereafter termed worldview). ABSTRACTMixed methods (MM) are increasingly popular. Researchers integrate qualitative (QUAL) and quantitative (QUAN) methods (e.g., research questions, data collections and analyses, and results). Several integration strategies have been proposed, but their conceptualization is usually design-driven, or fragmented, or not empirically tested. This is challenging for planning and conducting MM studies, and for training graduate students. Based on the methodological literature, we developed a conceptual framework including types of integration and practical strategies, and possible combinations. Then, we tested this framework using 93 health-related 2015 MM studies with a method-detailed description, which illustrated all types of combinations. Our work contributes to advance methodological knowledge on MM via (a) a call for better reporting healthrelated MM studies, and (b) a tested conceptualisation comprising 3 types of integration and 9 specific strategies, which explain current and future possibilities for combining strategies to integrate QUAL and QUAN phases, results, and data.

The Internet has become the first source of consumer health information. Most theoretical and empirical studies are centered on information needs and seeking, rather than on information outcomes. This review's purpose is to explore and explain health outcomes of Online Consumer Health Information (OCHI) in primary care. A participatory systematic mixed studies review with a framework synthesis was undertaken. Starting from an initial conceptual framework, our specific objectives were to (a) identify types of OCHI outcomes in primary care, (b) identify factors associated with these outcomes, and (c) integrate these factors and outcomes into a comprehensive revised framework combining an information theory and a psychosocial theory of behavior. The results of 65 included studies were synthesized using a qualitative thematic data analysis. The themes derived from the literature underwent a harmonization process that produced a comprehensive typology of OCHI outcomes. The revised conceptual framework specifies four individual and one organizational level of OCHI outcomes, while including factors such as consumers' information needs and four interdependent contextual factors. It contributes to theoretical knowledge about OCHI health outcomes, and informs future research, information assessment methods, and tools to help consumers find and use health information.

Primary health care practitioners routinely search for information within electronic knowledge resources. We proposed four levels of outcomes of informationseeking: situational relevance, cognitive impact, information use, and patient health outcomes. Our objective was to produce clinical vignettes for describing and testing these levels. We conducted a mixed methods study combining a quantitative longitudinal study and a qualitative multiple case study. Participants were 10 nurses, 10 medical residents, and 10 pharmacists. They had access to an online resource, and did 793 searches for treatment recommendations. Using the Information Assessment Method (IAM), participants rated their searches for each of the four levels. Rated searches were examined in interviews guided by log reports and a think-aloud protocol. Cases were defined as clearly described searches where clinical information was used for a specific patient. For each case, interviewees described the four levels of outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative data were merged into clinical vignettes. We produced 130 clinical vignettes. Specifically, 46 vignettes (35.4%) corresponded to clinical situations where information use was associated with one or more than one type of positive patient health outcome: increased patient knowledge (n = 28), avoidance of unnecessary or inappropriate intervention (n = 25), prevention of disease or health deterioration (n = 9), health improvement (n = 6), and increased patient satisfaction (n = 3). Results suggested information use was associated with perceived benefits for patients. This may encourage clinicians to search for information more often when they feel the need. Results supported the four proposed levels of outcomes, which can be transferable to other information-seeking contexts.

BackgroundOnline consumer health information addresses health problems, self-care, disease prevention, and health care services and is intended for the general public. Using this information, people can improve their knowledge, participation in health decision-making, and health. However, there are no comprehensive instruments to evaluate the value of health information from a consumer perspective.ObjectiveWe collaborated with information providers to develop and validate the Information Assessment Method for all (IAM4all) that can be used to collect feedback from information consumers (including patients), and to enable a two-way knowledge translation between information providers and consumers.MethodsContent validation steps were followed to develop the IAM4all questionnaire. The first version was based on a theoretical framework from information science, a critical literature review and prior work. Then, 16 laypersons were interviewed on their experience with online health information and specifically their impression of the IAM4all questionnaire. Based on the summaries and interpretations of interviews, questionnaire items were revised, added, and excluded, thus creating the second version of the questionnaire. Subsequently, a panel of 12 information specialists and 8 health researchers participated in an online survey to rate each questionnaire item for relevance, clarity, representativeness, and specificity. The result of this expert panel contributed to the third, current, version of the questionnaire.ResultsThe current version of the IAM4all questionnaire is structured by four levels of outcomes of information seeking/receiving: situational relevance, cognitive impact, information use, and health benefits. Following the interviews and the expert panel survey, 9 questionnaire items were confirmed as relevant, clear, representative, and specific. To improve readability and accessibility for users with a lower level of literacy, 19 items were reworded and all inconsistencies in using a passive or active voice have been solved. One item was removed due to redundancy. The current version of the IAM4all questionnaire contains 28 items.ConclusionsWe developed and content validated the IAM4all in partnership with information providers, information specialists, researchers and representatives of information consumers. This questionnaire can be integrated within electronic knowledge resources to stimulate users’ reflection (eg, their intention to use information). We claim that any organization (eg, publishers, community organizations, or patient associations), can evaluate and improve their online consumer health information from a consumers’ perspective using this method.