In contrast to the survey, the focus group study indicated that doctors were generally negative to clinical guidelines. We were not convinced that this difference in results was due to methodological flaws in either of the studies, and discuss instead how this difference may have been the result of a general methodological phenomenon.
Summary: Based on studies of how survey questionnaires influence responses, it appears reasonable to claim that surveys are more likely to find exaggerated
positive views. Conversely, there are some indications in the literature that AG-014699 cell line focus groups may result in complaints and overly negative attitudes, but Ricolinostat mw this is still an open question. We suggest that while problematic issues tend to be under-communicated in questionnaire surveys, they may be overstated in focus groups.
We argue for the importance
of increasing our understanding of focus group methodology, for example by reporting interesting discrepancies in mixed methods studies. In addition, more experimental research on focus groups should be conducted to advance the methodology and to test our hypothesis.”
“OBJECTIVES: To assess the strength of evidence in published articles for an association between indoor solid fuel combustion and tuberculosis.
METHODS: PubMed, a private database and Google Scholar were searched up to May 2008, as was the Cochrane Library (2008, issue 4), to identify articles on the association between indoor air pollution and tuberculous infection, tuberculosis disease and tuberculosis mortality. Each article initially chosen Salubrinal as acceptable for inclusion was reviewed for data extraction by three different reviewers using a standard format. Strength of evidence was determined by pre-determined
criteria.
RESULTS: The full texts of 994 articles were examined for a final selection of 10 possible articles, of which six met the inclusion criteria. All articles investigated the association between exposure to solid fuel (coal and biomass) smoke and tuberculosis disease. Three (50%) of the six studies included in the systematic review showed a significant effect of exposure to solid fuel combustion and tuberculosis disease-one high-quality case-control study and two cross-sectional studies.
CONCLUSION: Despite the plausibility of an association, available original studies looking at this issue do not provide sufficient evidence of an excess risk of tuberculosis due to exposure to indoor coal or biomass combustion.