HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Brown, C Articles by Lilford, R J PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Brown, C Articles by Lilford, R J Topic Collections Related Articles

An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 4. One size does not fit all

¹ Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
² University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
³ National Patient Safety Agency, London, UK
⁴ Newcastle upon Tyne Medical School, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
⁵ University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
⁶ London School of Pharmacy, London, UK

Correspondence to:
Dr C Brown, Research Methodology Programme, Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK; c.a.brown{at}bham.ac.uk

ABSTRACT
This is the final article in the series on the epistemology of patient safety research, and considers the selection of study design and end points during the planning of an evaluation. The key message of this series is that "one size does not fit all": the nature of the evaluation will depend on logistical and pragmatic constraints, a priori assessment of the probability of benefits and harms, the plausible scale of these effects and the target audience for the results. This paper also discusses the advantages of mixed method designs. The strength of any conclusions can be increased if different end points concur and the authors therefore advocate assessment of the effect of the intervention on different end points across the generic causal chain linking structure, process and outcome. The use of both qualitative and quantitative methods is also advocated to help explain findings, generate theory and help contextualise results. We show how a bayesian framework can be used to synthesise evidence from a number of different sources and why this approach may be particularly appropriate for the evaluation of patient safety interventions.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. P Stevens How do we know? Qual. Saf. Health Care, June 1, 2008; 17(3): 154 - 155. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. W Bates Mountains in the clouds: patient safety research Qual. Saf. Health Care, June 1, 2008; 17(3): 156 - 157. [Full Text] [PDF]