Perception of prescription medicine sample packs among Australian professional, government, industry, and consumer organizations, based on automated textual analysis of one-on-one interviews

Background Prescription medicine samples provided by pharmaceutical companies are predominantly newer and more expensive products. The range of samples provided to practices may not represent the drugs that the doctors desire to have available. Few studies have used a qualitative design to explore the reasons behind sample use. Objective The aim of this study was to explore the opinions of a variety of Australian key informants about prescription medicine samples, using a qualitative methodology. Methods Twenty-three organizations involved in quality use of medicines in Australia were identified, based on the authors' previous knowledge. Each organization was invited to nominate 1 or 2 representatives to participate in semistructured interviews utilizing seeding questions. Each interview was recorded and transcribed verbatim. Leximancer v2.25 text analysis software (Leximancer Pty Ltd., Jindalee, Queensland, Australia) was used for textual analysis. The top 10 concepts from each analysis group were interrogated back to the original transcript text to determine the main emergent opinions. Results A total of 18 key interviewees representing 16 organizations participated. Samples, patient, doctor, and medicines were the major concepts among general opinions about samples. The concept drug became more frequent and the concept companies appeared when marketing issues were discussed. The Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and cost were more prevalent in discussions about alternative sample distribution models, indicating interviewees were cognizant of budgetary implications. Key interviewee opinions added richness to the single-word concepts extracted by Leximancer. Conclusions Participants recognized that prescription medicine samples have an influence on quality use of medicines and play a role in the marketing of medicines. They also believed that alternative distribution systems for samples could provide benefits. The cost of a noncommercial system for distributing samples or starter packs was a concern. These data will be used to design further research investigating alternative models for distribution of samples.

Heavy vehicle safety in Oman: Police interviews and heavy vehicle driver survey and focus groups. Third Report of the Heavy Vehicle Safety Research in Oman Project for The Research Council of Oman.

Over the past six months the project has undertaken three key, separate, data collection rounds. Each of these rounds focused on essentially different issues within the broader common construct of heavy vehicle road safety. This document will initially report on a series of two key qualitative data collections rounds. Firstly it will detail findings and report on discussions held in focus groups with 43 heavy vehicle drivers. The second qualitative study involved a series of interviews undertaken with 19 police officers from various levels of command and operations within the Royal Oman Police. The final data collection round reported on in this document is a roadside survey questionnaire undertaken with 400 heavy vehicle drivers.

Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews.

BACKGROUND: When the nature and direction of research results affect their chances of publication, a distortion of the evidence base - termed publication bias - results. Despite considerable recent efforts to implement measures to reduce the non-publication of trials, publication bias is still a major problem in medical research. The objective of our study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to prevent or reduce publication bias. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the scholarly literature and extracted data from articles. Further, we performed semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. We performed an inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 39 articles. Thirty-four of 89 invited interview partners agreed to be interviewed. We clustered interventions into four categories: prospective trial registration, incentives for reporting in peer-reviewed journals or research reports, public availability of individual patient-level data, and peer-review/editorial processes. Barriers we identified included economic and personal interests, lack of financial resources for a global comprehensive trial registry, and different legal systems. Facilitators identified included: raising awareness of the effects of publication bias, providing incentives to make data publically available, and implementing laws to enforce prospective registration and reporting of clinical trial results. CONCLUSIONS: Publication bias is a complex problem that reflects the complex system in which it occurs. The cooperation amongst stakeholders to increase public awareness of the problem, better tailoring of incentives to publish, and ultimately legislative regulations have the greatest potential for reducing publication bias.

Josep Cuatrecasas Arumí

Sin resumen

Using Focus Groups to Research Sensitive Issues: Insights from Group Interviews on Nursing in the Northern Ireland “Troubles”

In this article the authors discuss the usefulness of focus groups for researching sensitive issues using evidence from a study examining the experiences of nurses providing care in the context of the Northern Ireland Troubles. They conducted three group interviews with nurses during which they asked about the issues the nurses face(d) in providing nursing care amid enduring social division. Through a discursive analysis of within-group interaction, they demonstrate how participants employ a range of interpretive resources, the effect of which is to prioritize particular knowledge concerning the nature of nursing care. The identification of such patterned activity highlights the ethnographic value of focus groups to reveal social conventions guiding the production of accounts but also suggests that accounts cannot be divorced from the circumstances of their production. Consequently, the authors argue that focus groups should be considered most useful for illuminating locally sanctioned ways of talking about sensitive issues.

Acquiescence in interviews with people who have mental retardation

Evidence for acquiescence (yea-saying) in interviews with people who have mental retardation is reviewed and the different ways it has been assessed are discussed. We argue that acquiescence is caused by many factors, each of which is detected differentially by these methods. Evidence on the likely causes of acquiescence is reviewed, and we suggest that although researchers often stress a desire to please or increased submissiveness as the must important factor, acquiescence should also be seen as a response to questions that are too complex, either grammatically or in the type of judgments they request. Strategies to reduce acquiescence in interviews are reviewed and measures that can be taken to increase the inclusiveness of interviews and self-report scales in this population suggested.