Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Methods Studies

Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Methods Studies

Student’s Name

Institution

Course

Instructor’s Name

Date

Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Methods Studies

          A study done by nurses aimed at solving problems that are relevant in the nursing field. The purpose of this paper is to scrutinize and critique one quantitative research article by Long, Bekelman, &Make (2014) and one qualitative research article by Harris et al., (2009), contrast the data collected from the two articles, and give a perception on the study methods.

         A qualitative study is composed consistent with a traditional strategy, by use of premeditated means to obtain data. In a qualitative study by Harris et al., (2009), simple questionnaires were formulated by health professionals on the questions asked by their patients, to illustrate how COPD patients engage in their daily activities around a healthcare environment. Sampling was also done on patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, and 51 patients were selected and identified through inpatient admission for COPD. Finally, the study also used the interviewing method, where 16 patients were interviewed and shown various vivid pictures, to help them reminisce and deal with the depicted situations.

           A mixed method study by Long, Bekelman, & Make (2014), was reviewed to assess the importance and viability of a qualified nurse to deliver quality healthcare intervention in patients with COPD. The study collected, analyzed, and integrated both quantitative and qualitative research methods. The authors conducted a 3-month study, where the sampling method was used on a sample size of 15 patients, to acquire information on the number of outpatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) stage III or IV.

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Two Research Approaches

          Each study is managed in different ways. The qualitative study by Harris et al., (2009) focuses on the barriers and facilitating aspects for patients with COPD in the interpretation of a manual containing a synopsis and verification of treatments used in COPD. The study also emphasizes answering questions that were provided at the health consultation, which were designed by the medical practitioners to examine the existing treatments with regard to the evidence. However, the mixed method study by Long, Bekelman, & Make (2014) concentrates on the "feasibility and usefulness of an advanced practice nurse-delivered palliative care intervention in patients with symptomatic COPD."

         An advantage of mixed-method research is that it enables the researcher to have more comprehensive knowledge and information about the problem. It also offers a rich dataset to increase the credibility and reliability of results through the survey of the various evidence outcomes. Long, Bekelman, & Make (2014) uses a small sample size of 15 patients, which makes the collection of patients' information easy. The authors were also able to identify from the twelve patients who used opioids for dyspnea and the 7 patients who registered in a pulmonary rehabilitation program, that there was a reduction in the level of depression and anxiety with the improvement in dyspnea in patients. Finally, the study also recognized that reports made by participants showed the feasibility of the intervention and that there were individual benefits from palliative care. A disadvantage of this study is that there are no considerations on the mental, social, and physical, needs, which vary significantly according to the nature of the disease suffered by the patients. Finally, there are no analytical tools to assist doctors in evaluating the survival of COPD, unlike critically ill cancer patients. Hence, there is a need for the advancement of some consistent prognostic evaluations for COPD, since there exists a strong relationship between real-life expectancy and old age care.

         An advantage of the qualitative study by Harris et al., (2009) is that it uses subjective information. The authors were able to identify both the barriers and facilitators for reading and discussion of evidence with doctors. Through the use of simple techniques that examine the cognitive process during reading, the study was able to obtain further insight into the use of the manual. A disadvantage of this study is that several barriers to reading were identified. Some patients did not see the importance of raising problems from the manual with a medical consultant. They assumed that doctors ought to have the task of mastering the information included in the manual and initiating reviews of medical treatment. Additionally, evidence summaries may have to be integrated with patient-identified topics to increase patient interest. Failure to do so would make it hard to gather patients' views on their behaviors. Finally, a larger sample size is required for an accurate result. The sample size used in the study was 51 patients. 

Is Qualitative Research Real Science?

            From the two reviewed articles, qualitative research methods were used, where the sample size was taken to interview and question the participants. Most researchers appreciate qualitative studies more for their relevance. However, they assume that qualitative study lacks scientific accuracy. Both qualitative and quantitative research are used to measure the results of information incorporated in the study. The two research designs can stand on their own merits and can work together to support the study process.

References

Arne, M., Emtner, M., Janson, S., & Wilde-Larsson, B. (2007). COPD patients' perspectives at

           the time of diagnosis: a qualitative study. Primary Care Respiratory Journal, 16(4), 215.

Harris, M., Wildgoose, D., Veale, A. J., & Smith, B. J. (2009). Providing reviews of evidence to

          COPD patients: qualitative study of barriers and facilitating factors to patient-mediated      

          practice change. Chronic Respiratory Disease, 7(1), 19–  

          28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1479972309358634

Long, M. B., Bekelman, D. B., & Make, B. (2014). Improving Quality of Life in Chronic

           Obstructive Pulmonary Disease by Integrating Palliative Approaches to Dyspnea,   

           Anxiety, and Depression. Journal of Hospice & Palliative Nursing, 16(8), 514–

           520. https://doi.org/10.1097/njh.0000000000000111

Nseir, S., Di Pompeo, C., Soubrier, S., Cavestri, B., Jozefowicz, E., Saulnier, F., & Durocher, A.

           (2005). Impact of ventilator-associated pneumonia on outcome in patients with      

           COPD. Chest, 128(3), 1650-1656.