Browsing by Author "Vode, Emilee"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Integration Through Connecting in Explanatory Sequential Mixed Method Studies
    (Sage, 2020-12) Burke Draucker, Claire; Rawl, Susan M.; Vode, Emilee; Carter-Harris, Lisa; School of Nursing
    The purposes of this methods article are to (a) discuss how integration can occur through a connecting approach in explanatory sequential mixed methods studies, (b) describe a connecting strategy developed for a study testing a conceptual model to predict lung cancer screening, and (c) describe three analytic products developed by subsequent integration procedures enabled by the connecting strategy. Connecting occurs when numeric data from a quantitative strand of a study are used to select a sample to be interviewed for a subsequent qualitative strand. Because researchers often do not fully exploit numeric data for this purpose, we developed a multi-step systematic sampling strategy that produced an interview sample of eight subgroups of five persons (n = 40) whose profiles converged with or diverged from the conceptual model in specified ways. The subgroups facilitated the development of tailored interview guides, in-depth narrative summaries, and exemplar case studies to expand the quantitative findings.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Understanding the decision to screen for lung cancer or not: A qualitative analysis
    (Wiley, 2019-12) Burke Draucker, Claire; Rawl, Susan M.; Vode, Emilee; Carter-Harris, Lisa; School of Nursing
    Background Although new screening programmes with low‐dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer have been implemented throughout the United States, screening uptake remains low and screening‐eligible persons' decisions to screen or not remain poorly understood. Objective To describe how current and former long‐term smokers explain their decisions regarding participation in lung cancer screening. Design Phone interviews using a semi‐structured interview guide were conducted to ask screening‐eligible persons to describe their decisions regarding screening with LDCT. The interviews were transcribed and analysed with conventional content analytic techniques. Setting and participants A subsample of 40 participants (20 who had screened and 20 who had not) were drawn from the sample of a survey study whose participants were recruited by Facebook targeted advertisements. Results The sample was divided into the following five groups based on their decisions regarding lung cancer screening participation: Group 1: no intention to be screened, Group 2: no deliberate consideration but somewhat open to being screened, Group 3: deliberate consideration but no definitive decision to be screened, Group 4: intention to be screened and Group 5: had been screened. Reasons for screening participation decisions are described for each group. Across groups, data revealed that screening‐eligible persons have a number of misconceptions regarding LDCT, including that a scan is needed only if one is symptomatic or has not had a chest x‐ray. A physician recommendation was a key influence on decisions to screen. Discussion and conclusions Education initiatives aimed at providers and long‐term smokers regarding LDCT is needed. Quality patient/provider communication is most likely to improve screening rates.