Quantitative vs Qualitative Research Methods

Introduction

Critically analysing appraise literature is an essential ingredient for clinical adoption of a population perspectives which consequently impacts healthcare system positively. Critical appraisal entails the processes of analysing and weighing the existing evidence for the betterment of informed decision making. A balanced review of the strengths and benefits of the research is done against its weaknesses and flaws (Green and Thorogood, 2018). The quantitative research methodology utilizes numbers in the formulation of analysis and is vital in the finding of correct critical solutions to a defined question. On the other hand, qualitative research methodologies make use of words in offering a description and analysis of the phenomenon. Qualitative methods are essential in an unveiling of detailed data concerning people’s attitudes and perceptions (Barker and Pistrang, 2015). For those pursuing their studies, seeking healthcare dissertation help can provide valuable insights and guidance in navigating complex literature and methodologies effectively.

The Justification for the Research Articles Selected

Quantitative and qualitative research methodologies represent different perspectives as far as research is concerned. My choice of the two materials is under the fact that both quantitative and qualitative methods share a diversified view in the area of study and therefore the need to analyse them for the purposes evidence-based clinical practice ought not to get overlooked. Quantitative methodologies apply in the contexts upon which factual information is sought to respond to the research question. In this quest to find answers to the research question, various opinions, beliefs, attitudes, preferences, and views are sought from the respondents to form vital hypotheses to be evidenced empirically (DiCenso, Guyatt and Ciliska, 2014)

My selection of the qualitative methods article is inspired by the clinical need to respond to existing experiences, perspectives and meaning of patients and caregivers involved in the clinical practice. Through the selected material, the potential challenges embedding active health practice are unravelled (Watanabe et al., pp 364-377). Qualitative research is continually gaining momentum in the clinical environment are within itself carries resourceful criteria for analysing the quality of clinical output. Qualitative methodologies are splendid in the chronological gathering, arrangement, description, and processing of verbal, visual or textual information (Bryman, 2017 pp 57-78).

The utilization of qualitative research is becoming more rampant in the field of healthcare and medicine. Many researchers concur to the premise that “qualitative research is a way to address both clinical and biopsychosocial phenomena" (Green and Thorogood, 2018). In qualitative research, the researcher is the keynote instrument and respondents are the contributors to the interpretation and analysis of information. Qualitative researchers protect the integrity of their research through various approaches such as credibility, applicability, trustworthiness, and consistency, which are also the evaluative criteria.

Critical Appraisal of Research Methodologies in Selected Articles

Qualitative research offers various ways of identifying what is relevant to caregivers and patients and renders an overview of potential barriers towards changing performances to the better. The methodologies therein also explain the reasons why the improvements made does not yield intended outcomes. The adequate utilization of qualitative methods could impact the future through the understanding of how quality is enhanced or improved (Retzer et al., 2018).

The utilization of qualitative methods in qualitative studies encompasses of a structured gathering, organisation and processing of textual contents derived from observation or a talk. Qualitative methods rest on the threshold of interpretive perspectives located within social and human sciences and which concentrates on the importance of mastering how individuals or groups interpret social phenomena. The purpose of qualitative research is to attract meaning out of a quality assessment (Gordon et al., 156-166).

Qualitative researchers make use of methods such as interviews, analysis of documented literature, observation to collect research information. In the selected Retzer et al., 2018 article, the researcher employs interviews and observation methods for assessing quality. The researcher introduces the respondent's interviews in both structured and semi-structured forms depending on the complexity of the topic. Open-ended questions are asked to explore different attitudes and experiences of the respondents.

The in-depth interviews conducted provide a credible chance to acquire a deeply rooted expertise that is instrumental in the exploration of events related to patient care. The use of meetings is tailored to elicit individual accounts and perspectives (Holloway and Galvin, 2016). The purpose of interviews has the potential to unravel concerns or issues that are not anticipated by the researcher. To yield more information collection, the researcher ought to provide a favourable rapport that inspires diverse responses.

The researcher ought to facilitate group discussions which will generate more relevant data. The groups should allow for free interactions, amongst the participant; upon which critical questions and argument emanate in the docket of shared experiences. The researcher should optimize the use of both exploration and quality circle groups for the sake of variant information (Gordon et al., 156-166). Exploration groups will encompass different healthcare providers having direct interaction with a specific health problem were they are expected to share their experiences through forms such as videotaped scenarios or audios for the development of meaningful interpretations. On the other hand, quality cycle groups should confine small groups of healthcare givers and patients meeting periodically within a specified period to formulate important hypotheses or action plans for the definite improvement of clinical practice.

The uses of observation-based methods in qualitative research are critical in the recording of actual events taking place within a healthcare system. The techniques are heavily employed in the analysis of organization and delivery care and therefore can give a blueprint of the actual accounts of the happenings within the healthcare system (Gordon et al., 156-166).

Sampling Techniques

The qualitative methods therein in the article are designed to produce holistic views on how purposeful, and quota sampling methods are eloquent in an application. In purposeful sampling, the respondents were selected based on a predetermined criterion guided by the research question. Quota sampling is present whereby respondents’ quotas are pre-set before sampling. The researcher employs quota sampling in the quest to collect information from a different specific number or respondents to meet the authentic requirements concerning age, marital sex, class, and sex (Gentles et al., 2015 pp 1772-1779).

In quantitative research, the type of sampling utilized by the researcher includes probability sampling which the researcher disintegrates into random, systematic, stratified and cluster sampling random sampling; every respondent possessed an equal chance of partaking the interview processes. The researcher uses stratified sort of sampling to explicitly choose the 5th person on an alphabetized list of respondents. In a cluster the researcher orients the respondents into sets of groups randomly chosen. A well-initiated sampling ensured optimal collection of data that informed the quantitative findings (Gordon et al., 156-166).

Data Analysis and Ethics

In qualitative studies, data gathered intends to yield definitive results and experiences. The researchers represent an intermediary between the respondents’ experiences and the large community where the study concentrates. Ethical considerations while undertaking research are evident both in qualitative and quantitative studies. Researchers are bestowed with the role to ensure that the research participants get protected. The researchers’ role ought to acquire permission and render protection against any imminent harm that may befall the respondents for their disclosures (Palinkas et al., 2015 pp 533-544).

Ethical issues in quantitative research focused on safeguarding respondents receiving interventions engaging training of respondents which requires self-disclosure. It is ethical for the researcher to inform the respondents about the objectives while seeking their consent and approval for participation. Ethical issues equally revealed that while carrying out non-experimental studies here the researcher is not tailored to manipulate the conditions under which the studies thrive (Watanabe et al., pp 364-377).

Strengths of Qualitative Research Methodologies Used

The use of interviews and observation possess various advantages in clinical research and practices. Qualitative methods are sufficient for many of the research needs in the field of medicine and healthcare. The techniques are helpful in bridging the gap between clinical practice and scientific evidence. Qualitative research methods are concerned with the study of realities that cannot be quantified and reflects on the mastery of explanations of the changing clinical practices (Taylor, Bogdan and DeVault, 2015).

According to Richter, Garvare, and Nyström, 2017; qualitative research focuses on meanings, aspirations, attitudes, beliefs, and motives which to the broader space of relationships and phenomena which cannot be reduced to the operationalization of variables. Observation is a necessary way of gathering data simultaneously with the happening of the event, without hampering the occurrence of the next game. Observation method is deemed flexible and focuses on the discovery of new knowledge (Choy, 2014 pp 99-104).

In most clinical situations, the analysis of people’s circumstances and environment can only be assessed through the use of observations. However, the process of obtaining data through observation may be time-consuming. The method may require preparation before the actual research conduction day. The researcher ought to travel to the grassroots level where events are taking place. Moreover, the observation method is sensitive to the independence of the researcher’s analysis based on the fact that he/her interprets the information (Lindlof and Taylor, 2017)

The use of structured interviews is subject to some limitations. The process of preparing a formal meeting may involve a tedious and time-consuming session. Besides, the conversations may not necessarily receive responses as predefined. The respondents may respond to the issues which are not raised hence roaming outside intentions of the research questions (Watanabe et al., pp 364-377).

The use of focus groups is the conventional approach of investigating a complex behaviour while the researcher interacts with the respondents. Data generation is relatively faster than when interviews get conducted individually. The information is obtained directly from the group participants from meaningful debates going on. In such situations, clarification can get sought when need be. The groups may, however, be hard to manage and control. The participant s may also be willing to participate hence inappropriate to collect timely information actively (Bryman, 2017 pp 57-78).

Ethnography is equally a component of qualitative methodologies which includes observing a situation at hand and carrying out interview processes with its participants. The researcher strives to analyse and interpret the case from the perspective of the respondents. The researcher draws the observations from a natural extraction while trying to deduce how the participants perceive the ideas under study (Lindlof and Taylor, 2017). The researcher in ethnography ought to possess a holistic view in the case where there is a need to look at the details of existing aspects. The method is advantageous because the researcher develops an in-depth mastery of the subject under analysis. However, the process demands for substantial investment regarding time and the results of the research may vary and therefore posing difficulties to obtain precise and intended findings (Bryman, 2017 pp 57-78).

Quantitative Methodologies Used in the Campbell et al., 2017 Article

Concerning Campbell et al., 2017 article, the uses of field experiments, surveys, co-relational studies, and simulations are applicable. Field experiments take place in the real-life environment where the clinical practice takes the course. The method engages the manipulation and isolation of one or more variables to test the impact. The technique permits the researcher to look at the authentic behaviour while having fewer variables to consider (McCusker, and Gunaydin, 2015 pp 537-542). Field experiments are more significant in comparison with laboratory investigations since it delivers a natural threshold for the study as opposed to the naturally induced lab environment. It is limited in application since it fails to control the variables and thus, replicate similar conditions. Moreover, since it is cumbersome to regulate the field environment unexpected result may arise which may lead to wrong interpretations (Green and Thorogood, 2018).

The use of simulations is convenient in analysing complex and real vast problem through the creation of a representative model. The method is advantageous because it can compress the element of time, hence leading to a rapid investigation. However, as the model, the coming up of the whole idea may call for a deeply inculcated knowledge which consequently may be time costly and expensive (Holloway and Galvin, 2016).

The application of surveys in the quantitative article allows for the data collected from the patients or any other respondent within the healthcare system through a set of structured questions which follow an organized and particular manner. Surveys allow for extraction of data concerning a specific event through the preparation of questions that responds on the views and behaviours of respondents. Reviews are important in the article because they represent the entire large population at a relatively lower cost. However, the dependability of survey information is reliant upon the survey component and the accuracy of responses by the respondents (Gordon et al., 156-166).

Service User Involvement in the Selected Research Articles

The findings from the two articles mentioned above provide for optimism concerning service user involvement in clinical processes. Written literature shows how participation of service users in decision making at all levels of the health care system has had a long history in the United Kingdom. The potential to include service users in the development of and delivery of clinical services is vital in the conception of intended clinical outcomes. The two research methods suggest for service users inclusivity in governance processes within the clinical practices (Shippee et al. 2015 pp 1151-1166).

Involvement of service users can elevate self-esteem, increase customers’ satisfaction and improve personal outcomes especially when the patients agree on the rationales of their treatment while having control over the same. Also, the engagements of community members provide chances for peer mentoring and supporting (Richter, Garvare, and Nyström, 2017 pp 1151-1166). The particular involvement in services will induce informed care, improved life quality, better relationships among stakeholders of healthcare and improved outcomes for service providers and users. Involvement in the planning stage and leadership delivery can lead to improved information sharing and access to service users and bring about positive impacts concerning decision-making processes. Efficient service user calls for decisions related to which methodologies to use, and who to engage in clinical practices (Green and Thorogood, 2018).

How Selected Articles Impact Evidence-based Clinical Practice

The qualitative article renders glowing recommendations concerning clinical practice. The study made use of interviews and observation methods in coming up with sound recommendations which signifies on how evidence-based clinical practice can get deduced (McCusker, and Gunaydin, 2015 pp 537-542). Clinical nurses partakes a critical function in initiating communication with the patients and perhaps prolonging these communications into involving them induce home-visit for proper adherence to treatment regimen (Watanabe et al., pp 364-377). Systematic review constitutes of a vital component in evidence-based medical practices, and this can get perfected by initiating the use of qualitative variant. The researchers ought to come up with benchmarks to use in the evolution of qualitative research findings.

Qualitative research might appear anecdotal and unscientific by many medical associates. However, medicine calls for more than the use of scientific principles. Clinical endeavours built on the grounds of reflection, observation, and judgment is fundamental in the delivery of informed treatment regimen. The personal experiences are more often perceived by some medicine scholars as ungeneralisable, anecdotal and therefore a weak basis to overlay scientific conclusions. However, it is a vital persuasive tool than scientific findings in transforming the healthcare system into the adoption of evidence-based approaches (McCusker, and Gunaydin, 2015 pp 537-542).

The qualitative methods used in the research are a commitment towards naturalism in that they tend to incline towards finding out the health behaviour and processes on a daily basis. The qualitative studies in the article oriented toward the interpretation of individual patient’s symptoms and treatment regimen which the patients receive from the caregivers. The different processes on how the various meanings underlying the existing healthcare system and how it can vary over time are given preferences for the goodwill of evidence-based health review (Green and Thorogood, 2018).

Conclusion

Research is a critical tool in the establishment of knowledge in various domains. A systematically conducted research ought to achieve effectiveness, clinical excellence and lifelong learning experiences from different perspectives of life. As discussed above, both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies can be harnessed to induce vast knowledge concerning clinical practice. Evidence-based method renders the best available clinical evidence, patients’ expectations and values and guidelines on how individual clinical personnel can be utilized for practical clinical outcomes (McCusker, and Gunaydin, 2015 pp 537-542). The articles appraised above have given essential insights concerning how the research findings can lay a good foundation for evidence-based clinical practice and the potentials of service user involvement I various aspects influencing healthcare system.

References

Barker, C. and Pistrang, N., 2015. Research methods in clinical psychology: An introduction for students and practitioners. John Wiley & Sons.

Bryman, A., 2017. Quantitative and qualitative research: further reflections on their integration. In Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research (pp. 57-78). Routledge.

Choy, L.T., 2014. The strengths and weaknesses of research methodology: Comparison and complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(4), pp.99-104.

DiCenso, A., Guyatt, G. and Ciliska, D., 2014. Evidence-Based Nursing-E-Book: A Guide to Clinical Practice. Elsevier Health Sciences.

Gentles, S.J., Charles, C., Ploeg, J. and McKibbon, K., 2015. Sampling in qualitative research: Insights from an overview of the methods literature. The Qualitative Report, 20(11), pp.1772-1789.

Green, J. and Thorogood, N., 2018. Qualitative methods for health research. Sage.

Holloway, I. and Galvin, K., 2016. Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare. John Wiley & Sons.

Gordon, D.B., de Leon-Casasola, O.A., Wu, C.L., Sluka, K.A., Brennan, T.J. and Chou, R., 2016. Research gaps in practice guidelines for acute postoperative pain management in adults: findings from a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society Clinical Practice Guideline. The Journal of Pain, 17(2), pp.158-166.

Lindlof, T.R. and Taylor, B.C., 2017. Qualitative communication research methods. Sage publications.

McCusker, K. and Gunaydin, S., 2015. Research using qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods and choice based on the research. Perfusion, 30(7), pp.537-542.

Palinkas, L.A., Horwitz, S.M., Green, C.A., Wisdom, J.P., Duan, N. and Hoagwood, K., 2015. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), pp.533-544.

Richter, L.S., Garvare, R. and Nyström, M.E., 2017. Reaching beyond the review of research evidence: a qualitative study of decision making during the development of clinical practice guidelines for disease prevention in healthcare. BMC health services research, 17(1), pp.344-344.

Shippee, N.D., Domecq Garces, J.P., Prutsky Lopez, G.J., Wang, Z., Elraiyah, T.A., Nabhan, M., Brito, J.P., Boehmer, K., Hasan, R., Firwana, B. and Erwin, P.J., 2015. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expectations, 18(5), pp.1151-1166.

Taylor, S.J., Bogdan, R. and DeVault, M., 2015. Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource. John Wiley & Sons.

Watanabe, S., Hashimoto, E., Ikejima, K., Uto, H., Ono, M., Sumida, Y., Seike, M., Takei, Y., Takehara, T., Tokushige, K. and Nakajima, A., 2015. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease/non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Journal of Gastroenterology, 50(4), pp.364-377.