Qualitative analysis of the interdisciplinary interaction between data analysis specialists and novice clinical researchers.

BACKGROUND: The inherent complexity of statistical methods and clinical phenomena compel researchers with diverse domains of expertise to work in interdisciplinary teams, where none of them have a complete knowledge in their counterpart's field. As a result, knowledge exchange may often be characterized by miscommunication leading to misinterpretation, ultimately resulting in errors in research and even clinical practice. Though communication has a central role in interdisciplinary collaboration and since miscommunication can have a negative impact on research processes, to the best of our knowledge, no study has yet explored how data analysis specialists and clinical researchers communicate over time. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted qualitative analysis of encounters between clinical researchers and data analysis specialists (epidemiologist, clinical epidemiologist, and data mining specialist). These encounters were recorded and systematically analyzed using a grounded theory methodology for extraction of emerging themes, followed by data triangulation and analysis of negative cases for validation. A policy analysis was then performed using a system dynamics methodology looking for potential interventions to improve this process. Four major emerging themes were found. Definitions using lay language were frequently employed as a way to bridge the language gap between the specialties. Thought experiments presented a series of "what if" situations that helped clarify how the method or information from the other field would behave, if exposed to alternative situations, ultimately aiding in explaining their main objective. Metaphors and analogies were used to translate concepts across fields, from the unfamiliar to the familiar. Prolepsis was used to anticipate study outcomes, thus helping specialists understand the current context based on an understanding of their final goal. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The communication between clinical researchers and data analysis specialists presents multiple challenges that can lead to errors.

Explanatory Model for the Use of Traditional Medicines in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania

Introduction: Traditional medicines are one of the most important means of achieving total health care coverage globally, and their importance in Tanzania extends beyond the impoverished rural areas. Their use remains high even in urban settings among the educated middle and upper classes. They are a critical component healthcare in Tanzania, but they also can have harmful side effects. Therefore we sought to understand the decision-making and reasoning processes by building an explanatory model for the use of traditional medicines in Tanzania.

Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study between December 2013 and June 2014 in the Kilimanjaro Region of Tanzania. Using purposive sampling methods, we conducted focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews of key informants, and the qualitative data were analyzed using an inductive Framework Method. A structured survey was created, piloted, and then administered it to a random sample of adults. We reported upon the reliability and validity of the structured survey, and we used triangulation from multiple sources to synthesize the qualitative and quantitative data.

Results: A total of five FGDs composed of 59 participants and 27 in-depth interviews were conducted in total. 16 of the in-depth interviews were with self-described traditional practitioners or herbal vendors. We identified five major thematic categories that relate to the decision to use traditional medicines in Kilimanjaro: healthcare delivery, disease understanding, credibility of the traditional practices, health status, and strong cultural beliefs.

A total of 473 participants (24.1% male) completed the structured survey. The most common reasons for taking traditional medicines were that they are more affordable (14%, 12.0-16.0), failure of hospital medicines (13%, 11.1-15.0), they work better (12%, 10.7-14.4), they are easier

to obtain (11%, 9.48-13.1), they are found naturally or free (8%, 6.56-9.68), hospital medicines have too many chemical (8%, 6.33-9.40), and they have fewer side effects (8%, 6.25-9.30). The most common uses of traditional medicines were for symptomatic conditions (42%), chronic diseases (14%), reproductive problems (11%), and malaria and febrile illnesses (10%). Participants currently taking hospital medicines for chronic conditions were nearly twice as likely to report traditional medicines usage in the past year (RR 1.97, p=0.05).

Conclusions: We built broad explanatory model for the use of traditional medicines in Kilimanjaro. The use of traditional medicines is not limited to rural or low socioeconomic populations and concurrent use of traditional medicines and biomedicine is high with frequent ethnomedical doctor shopping. Our model provides a working framework for understanding the complex interactions between biomedicine and traditional medicine. Future disease management and treatment programs will benefit from this understanding, and it can lead to synergistic policies with more effective implementation.