Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Addiction | Research article

Q sample construction: a novel approach incorporating a Delphi technique to explore opinions about codeine dependence

Authors: Melissa Kirschbaum, Tony Barnett, Merylin Cross

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Q methodology is an evidenced approach to researching subjectivity, involving a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques. The methodology has been used successfully in healthcare research to explore the opinions of patients and healthcare providers about topics such as the illness experience, healthcare services, clinical practice and professional training. Q methodology studies require the generation of a Q sample, a set of opinion statements representing the phenomenon of interest. This paper describes a novel and rigorous approach to develop a Q sample for a study exploring misusers’ opinions about over-the-counter (OTC) codeine dependence and critically examines the associated methodological issues.

Methods

Development of the Q sample in this study involved three steps; (1) identification of opinion statements via a comprehensive literature search, (2) application of a theoretical framework, the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation - Behaviour (COM-B) model of behaviour, to group and then reduce the number of statements and (3) use of a Delphi technique to achieve expert consensus on the final selection of statements. The Delphi component involved a multidisciplinary panel of 15 addiction experts comprised of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, psychologists and researchers, who were recruited purposively. Experts rated each statement using a 5-point scale of perceived importance. Two Delphi rounds were undertaken and consensus for inclusion of a statement was set at a median score of ≥4 and an interquartile range of ≤1.

Results

A total of 842 statements representing codeine misusers’ opinions about OTC codeine dependence were identified from the literature. Statements were grouped thematically using the COM-B framework and representative statements were selected, reducing the number to 111. After two Delphi rounds, addiction experts achieved consensus on 46 statements which formed the final Q sample.

Conclusions

This paper describes a new and systematic approach to Q sample construction and explores associated methodological issues that could be useful for those considering Q methodology and for furthering the rigour of this research technique.
Literature
1.
Flurey CA, Morris M, Pollock J, Richards P, Hughes R, Hewlett S. A Q-methodology study of flare help-seeking behaviours and different experiences of daily life in rheumatoid arthritis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:364.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
2.
Patty NJ, van Dijk HM, Wallenburg I, Bal R, Helmerhorst TJ, Van Exel J, et al. To vaccinate or not to vaccinate? Perspectives on HPV vaccination among girls, boys, and parents in the Netherlands: a Q-methodological study. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:872.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
3.
Berghout M, van Exel J, Leensvaart L, Cramm JM. Healthcare professionals’ views on patient-centered care in hospitals. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:385.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Shabila NP, Al-Tawil NG, Al-Hadithi TS, Sondorp E. Using Q-methodology to explore people’s health seeking behavior and perception of the quality of primary care services. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:2.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
Killam LA, Montgomery P, Raymond JM, Mossey S, Timmermans KE, Binette J. Unsafe clinical practices as perceived by final year baccalaureate nursing students: Q methodology. BMC Nurs. 2012;11:26.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Hazen AC, Van Der Wal AW, Sloeserwij VM, Zwart DL, De Gier JJ, De Wit NJ, et al. Controversy and consensus on a clinical pharmacist in primary care in the Netherlands. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38:1250–60.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
Alderson S, Foy R, Bryant L, Ahmed S, House A. Using Q-methodology to guide the implementation of new healthcare policies. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27:737–42.PubMedCrossRef
8.
van Exel J, Baker R, Mason H, Donaldson C, Brouwer W. Public views on principles for health care priority setting: findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology. Soc Sci Med. 2015;126:128–37.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Baker R, Wildman J, Mason H, Donaldson C. Q-ing for health - a new approach to eliciting the public’s views on health care resource allocation. Health Econ. 2014;23:283–97.PubMedCrossRef
10.
11.
Fokkema JP, Scheele F, Westerman M, van Exel J, Scherpbier AJ, van der Vleuten CP, et al. Perceived effects of innovations in postgraduate medical education: a Q study focusing on workplace-based assessment. Acad Med. 2014;89:1259–66.PubMedCrossRef
12.
13.
Stephenson W. Correlating persons instead of tests. J Pers. 1935;4(1):17–24.CrossRef
14.
Brown SR. Political subjectivity: applications of Q methodology in policial science. New Haven and London: Yale University Press; 1980.
15.
Burt C, Stephenson W. Alternative views on correlations between persons. Psychometrika. 1939;4(4):269–81.CrossRef
16.
Watts S, Stenner P. Doing Q methodological research: theory, method and interpretation. Los Angeles: Sage; 2012.
17.
18.
Kampen JK, Tamás P. Overly ambitious: contributions and current status of Q methodology. Qual Quant. 2014;48(6):3109–26.CrossRef
19.
Block J. The Q-sort in character appraisal: encoding subjective impressions of persons quantitatively: American Psychological Association; 2008.
20.
Fontein-Kuipers Y. Development of a Q-set for a Q-method study about midwives’ perspectives of woman-centered care. Health Edu Care. 2016;1(2):31–6.CrossRef
21.
Paige JB, Morin KH. Q-sample construction: a critical step for a Q-methodological study. West J Nurs Res. 2016;38(1):96–110.PubMedCrossRef
22.
23.
Wallis J, Burns J, Capdevila R. Q methodology and a Delphi poll: a useful approach to researching a narrative approach to therapy. Qual Res Psychol. 2009;6(3):173–90.CrossRef
24.
Rust NA. Can stakeholders agree on how to reduce human–carnivore conflict on Namibian livestock farms? A novel Q-methodology and Delphi exercise. Oryx. 2017;51(2):339–46.CrossRef
25.
Michie S, Van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6:42.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Sinnott C, Mercer SW, Payne RA, Duerden M, Bradley CP, Byrne M. Improving medication management in multimorbidity: development of the MultimorbiditY COllaborative medication review and DEcision making (MY COMRADE) intervention using the behaviour change wheel. Implement Sci. 2015;10:132.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Gardner B, Smith L, Lorencatto F, Hamer M, Biddle SJ. How to reduce sitting time? A review of behaviour change strategies used in sedentary behaviour reduction interventions among adults. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10(1):89–112.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Webb J, Foster J, Poulter E. Increasing the frequency of physical activity very brief advice for cancer patients. Development of an intervention using the behaviour change wheel. Public Health. 2016;133:45–56.PubMedCrossRef
29.
West R. Models of Addiction. EMCDDA Insight Series No14. Luxembourg: European monitoring Centre for drugs and drug addiction; 2013.
30.
Dalkey N, Helmer O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manag Sci. 1963;9(3):458–67.CrossRef
31.
Keeney S, McKenna H, Hasson F. The Delphi technique in nursing and health research. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.CrossRef
32.
Linstone HA, Turoff M, editors. The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1975.
33.
34.
von der Gracht HA. Consensus measurement in Delphi studies. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2012;79(8):1525–36.CrossRef
35.
O’Donovan A, Mohile S, Leech M. Expert consensus panel guidelines on geriatric assessment in oncology. Eur J Cancer Care. 2015;24(4):574–89.CrossRef
36.
Jünger S, Payne S, Brearley S, Ploenes V, Radbruch L. Consensus building in palliative care: a Europe-wide Delphi study on common understandings and conceptual differences. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2012;44:192–205.CrossRef
37.
Vandelanotte C, Dwyer T, Van Itallie A, Hanley C, Mummery WK. The development of an internet-based outpatient cardiac rehabilitation intervention: a Delphi study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2010;10:27.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
39.
McMahon S, Cusack T, O’Donoghue G. Barriers and facilitators to providing undergraduate physiotherapy clinical education in the primary care setting: a three-round Delphi study. Physiotherapy. 2014;100(1):14–9.PubMedCrossRef
40.
41.
Baker R, Thompson C, Mannion R. Q methodology in health economics. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2006;11(1):38–45.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Hilden AH. Q-sort correlation: stability and random choice of statements. J Consult Psychol. 1958;22(1):45.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Daily JH. Dimensions of political attitudes: a Q technique study of public reactions to the Calley verdict [dissertation]. Kent. In: Ohio: Kent State University; 1973.
44.
Trevelyan EG, Robinson N. Delphi methodology in health research: how to do it? Eur J Integr Med. 2015;7(4):423–8.CrossRef
45.
Dolan C, Glynn R, Lawlor B. A Delphi study to establish an expert consensus opinion on risk factors for type 2 diabetes, and potential complications of diabetes, including brain health associations. Eur Psychiatry. 2017;41(Suppl 1):S649.CrossRef
46.
Davies E, Martin J, Foxcroft D. Development of an adolescent alcohol misuse intervention based on the prototype willingness model: a Delphi study. Health Educ. 2016;116(3):275–91.CrossRef
47.
Primdahl SC, Todsen T, Clemmesen L, Knudsen L, Weile J. Rating scale for the assessment of competence in ultrasound-guided peripheral vascular access–a Delphi consensus study. J Vasc Access. 2016;17(5):440–5.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Maverakis E, Ma C, Shinkai K, Fiorentino D, Callen JP, Wollina U, et al. Diagnostic criteria of ulcerative pyoderma gangrenosum: a Delphi consensus of international experts. JAMA dermatology. 2018;154(4):461–6.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Sumsion T. The Delphi technique: an adaptive research tool. Br J Occup Ther. 1998;61(4):153–6.CrossRef
50.
Adler M, Ziglio E, editors. Gazing into the oracle: the Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 1996.
51.
Giannarou L, Zervas E. Using Delphi technique to build consensus in practice. Int J Bus Sci Appl Manag. 2014;9(2):65–82.
52.
Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, Moore AM, Wales PW, Pencharz PB, et al. Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(4):401–9.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Holey EA, Feeley JL, Dixon J, Whittaker VJ. An exploration of the use of simple statistics to measure consensus and stability in Delphi studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
54.
Raskin MS. The Delphi study in field instruction revisited: expert consensus on issues and research priorities. J Soc Work Educ. 1994;30(1):75–89.CrossRef
55.
Rayens MK, Hahn EJ. Building consensus using the policy Delphi method. Policy Polit Nurs Pract. 2000;1(4):308–15.CrossRef
56.
Robinson SB, Leonard KF. Designing quality survey questions. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2019.
57.
Kelly J, Wakeman S, Saitz R. Stop talking ‘dirty': clinicians, language, and quality of care for the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Am J Med. 2015;128(1):8–9.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Broyles LM, Binswanger IA, Jenkins JA, Finnell DS, Faseru B, Cavaiola A, et al. Confronting inadvertent stigma and pejorative language in addiction scholarship: a recognition and response. Subst Abus. 2014;35:217–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
59.
Kelly JF, Saitz R, Wakeman S. Language, substance use disorders, and policy: the need to reach consensus on an “addiction-ary”. Alcohol Treat Q. 2016;34(1):116–23.CrossRef
60.
61.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Arlington: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.CrossRef
62.
Metadata
Title
Q sample construction: a novel approach incorporating a Delphi technique to explore opinions about codeine dependence
Authors
Melissa Kirschbaum
Tony Barnett
Merylin Cross
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0741-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

Unweighted regression models perform better than weighted regression techniques for respondent-driven sampling data: results from a simulation study

Research article

Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review

Research article

Why do participants drop-out: findings from a prospective pediatric cohort for fever surveillance established at Vellore, southern India

Research article

Current approaches to identify sections within clinical narratives from electronic health records: a systematic review

Research article

Preventing bias from selective non-response in population-based survey studies: findings from a Monte Carlo simulation study

Research article

Outcomes of two randomized controlled trials, employing participants recruited through Mechanical Turk, of Internet interventions targeting unhealthy alcohol use