Bolstering the Biomedical Paradigm

Authors

  • Frank Thomas Houghton College of Health Science & Public Health, Eastern Washington University, USA
  • Sharon B Houghton Department of Psychology, Eastern Washington University, USA

Keywords:

biostatistics, qualitative research

Abstract

In this editorial, Drs. Frank Thomas Houghton and Sharon Houghton discuss JAMA's recent (2014) series on statistics and methods as evidence of an overemphasis on quantitative methodology in research and an ignoring of qualitative methods.

References

Why Publish in JAMA? [Internet] Chicago: American Medical Association; 2014 [cited 2014 Nov 9]. Available from: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/public/WhyPublish.aspx

Livingston EH. Introducing the JAMA Guide to Statistics and Methods. JAMA. 2014;312(1):35.

Detry MA, Lewis RJ. The intention-to-treat principle: how to assess the true effect of choosing a medical treatment. JAMA. 2014;312(1):85-6.

Cao J, Zhang S. Multiple comparison procedures. JAMA. 2014;312(5):543-4.

Stokes L. Sample size calculation for a hypothesis test. JAMA. 2014;312(2):180-1.

Hodges BD, Kuper A, Reeves S. Discourse analysis. BMJ. 2008;337:a879.

Giacomini MK, Cook DJ. Users' guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care B. What are the results and how do they help me care for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 2000;284(4):478-82.

Giacomini MK, Cook DJ. Users' guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 2000;284(3):357-62.

Downloads

Published

2014-10-16

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 3 (2014)

Section

Editorials

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.