A Comparison of Research Methodologies

A Comparison of Research Methodologies

A Comparison of Research Methodologies 150 150 Peter

A Comparison of Research Methodologies

Assignment Brief:
Read 2 articles which have been set for the assignment
Don’t worry about the subject area; the relevance is in the approaches to research and their appropriateness to the aim
Critically compare the 2 articles provided, considering the following:
1.what are the principles employed in the different research methodologies?
2.how do the differences in the approaches relate to the aims of the research?
3.When considering your own current and/or future practice, when would you employ these different methodologies and what would the strengths/weaknesses be?

You must use the 2 articles provided when considering the above. However, please support your critical analysis with wider reading and appropriate referencing.

Learning outcomes:
Analyse the different approaches to research including processes, methods and designs
Critically evaluate the strengths/weaknesses of published research/evidence to inform current and future practice which addresses national and local health care provision.

The assignment is 1000 words
I have included a copy of the full assessment (assignment) information
I have included both articles, Article one is Barriers to caregiver compliance (Qualitative) and Article two is Improving care for patients (Quantitative)
I have also included my own attempt at the assignment which I think I have not got right but just encase you can use something from it so at least some of it would be my own work
I have also included my reference list I don’t know if it will be of any use or not
I’ve put 15 sources to be cited but that’s just a guess it could be or less I’m not sure but I know we have to demonstrate we’ve read widely. It’s my first assignment in 20 years as I’ve returned to uni to do a top-up so I’m not expecting an A, again hence why I’ve included my own rubbish attempt. I’m hoping this will set me in the right direction for next time as my own rubbish version has taken me weeks to put together

Sample Paper

A Comparison of Research Methodologies

Principles Employed in the Different Research Methodologies

Different research methodologies can be applied to successfully conduct research and attain the aims of the specific study. Qualitative research is most suitable when studying people’s perceptions and quality factors of the problem in question to give a detailed description of the context, observation, or circumstance (Denny and Weckesser, 2019). On the other hand, quantitative research is suitable giving a statistical interpretation of data (McLiesh et al., 2018). The two articles, “Barriers to caregiver compliance with eating and drinking for adults with intellectual disabilities” and “Improving care for patients with dysphagia,” feature the same health issue of dysphagia and compliance with Speech and Language Therapists (SLT) in patients with intellectual disabilities. However, they apply different research methodologies, designs, and techniques because of their respective study’s varying research aims and purposes.

The first article is Chadwick et al. 2006, “Barriers to caregiver compliance.” It is a qualitative study that utilizes open-ended semi-structured interviews to identify factors that affect adherence to SLT dysphagia guidelines. The second article by Rosenvinge and Starke. 2005, “Improving care for patients with dysphagia” is a quantitative study whose objective was determining the patients’ compliance with swallowing recommendations to alleviate dysphagia and investigating the transformation evident in practice by improving compliance. Rosenvinge and Starke employed an observational study of interventional strategies with patients with dysphagia with the help of medics on duty. Even though researching the same health condition, the research design, sampling, data collection, analysis, and relevance to the current and future nursing practice vary but with some few similarities. The similarities and variations are crucial in nurses’ occupation as it helps demonstrate an understanding of research and apply it to promote the best nursing practice.

Both articles employed exploratory research designs in the study. According to Andrew and Halcomb, this design is relevant when meaning is derived from cumulative data (2009). Nonetheless, the research techniques and methods utilized by the authors were distinct. Chadwick et al.’s article sourced its data from open-ended semi-structured interviews administered to caregivers of patients with intellectual disabilities under the SLT services (2006). The interview questions were designed to elicit information on the patients’ difficulty complying with STL’s dysphagia guidelines. The interviews that took 10-25 minutes were appropriate and effective in garnering first-hand and sufficient information about the situation at hand (Peter&Halcomb, 2015). The participants stratified sampled received feedback and the appropriateness of their responses during the process. Conversely, Rosenvinge and Starke’s article was a sequential observational study analysing results before and after the intervention. 31 Patients with dysphagia were sequentially observed in 2002 and 2003 for their adherence to the recommendations of SLT’s guidelines and the effectiveness of implemented changes.            Regarding sampling techniques, Chadwick et al. used the stratified sampling approach while Rosenvinge and Starke employed the convenience sampling technique. According to the study, stratified sampling entails grouping participants into strata with standard features and relevance (Bhardwaj, 2019). The first article worked with sample size, n=69 sampled adults with intellectual disabilities referred for SLT therapies due to their dysphagia condition in Manchester city. Stratification was done regarding the setting (family homes, tiny group homes, and day centres) and the feeding dependence of the participants (Chadwick et al., 2003). The caregivers and the staff of the settings for the patients were then consented to the interviews. Convenience sampling involves the selection of the representative sample concerning their availability (Stratton, 2021). The second article observed patients in the wards for adherence to the set guidelines. The study participants were chosen as they were hospital inpatients on the SLT caseload at the time of the study and were identified by ward type rather than name or gender. The researcher gained consent from the patients, but the observed staff was unaware of the study.

How the Differences in the Approaches Relate to the Aims of the Research

A qualitative study was appropriate in Chadwick et al.’s article because the study’s aims were merely theoretical and descriptive narrative on some of the factors, difficulties in compliance to SLT’s guidelines on dysphagia, and the associated risks were adequate for data analysis. The open-ended semi-structured interviews satisfactorily answered the research questions and led to the study’s results and conclusion. On the other hand, quantitative study through sequential observations was suitable for Rosenvinge and Starke’s article. The approach mainly relies on statistical strategies, and scientific data analysis and interpretation are employed in research where a particular scale of the result is required (Driesneck et al., 2007a). The article aimed to determine compliance and measure the effectiveness of changes in practice in improving compliance which can hardly be attained by descriptive or narration research. The data had to be quantified to give a specific measure of observation and effectiveness. Getting a particular percentage of compliance is crucial in solving the intense problem of many dysphagia patients’ inabilities to follow the set recommendations and, hence, negatively impacting their health state. Thus the distinct approaches for each article were effective in attaining the purpose and objectives of the research while guiding further research on the medical condition.

When to Employ the Different Methodologies in my Current and/or Future Nursing Practice.

            The varied research methodologies, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed with their associated techniques and designs, are significant in research depending on the study’s aims, context, and purpose. Both methodologies are essential in my current and future nursing role as a practicing nurse, especially on studies relating to crucial health concerns. Research and the relevant process are invaluable for nurses as they guide advancement in the field, staying updated in healthcare, and providing the best patient care (Jolley, 2020). Article one employed qualitative techniques effectively to prove that support and training are crucial in improving compliance practice for dysphagia patients. Thus, the research forms a basis for further studies and informing the nursing and entire healthcare profession. However, Driesneck et al. imply that qualitative research can cause misleading results and become time-consuming if done poorly (2007a).

Conversely, the second article implied the essence of follow-ups and education in enhancing dysphagia management. The comparison of pre and post-intervention results improves its authenticity and application in healthcare to yield positive outcomes. Nonetheless, the study sample is too small to give an actual picture of the entire population. Another weakness of quantitative research is that findings can hardly be interpreted by someone with no firm statistical or scientific grasp (McLiesh et al., 2018). Therefore, all research methodologies are critical in helping nurses use the gathered information effectively to interpret data and develop their conclusions and recommendations on the health concern in question if applied appropriately.

References

Andrew, S., & Halcomb, E. (2009). Mixed methods research for nursing and the health sciences. Wiley-Blackwell. hud.summon.serialssolution.com

Bhardwaj, P. (2019). Types of Sampling in Research. Journal of the Practice of Cardiovascular Sciences, 5(3), 157-163. https://doi.org/10.4103/jpcs.jpcs_62_19

Chadwick, D. D., Jolliffe, J., & Goldbart, J. (2003). Adherence to eating and drinking guidelines for adults with intellectual disabilities and dysphagia. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 108(3), 201-211. https://doi.org/10.1352/0895-8017(2003)108<0202:ATEADG>2.0.CO;2

Chadwick, D. D., Jolliffe, J., Goldbart, J., & Burton, M. H. (2006). Barriers to caregiver compliance with eating and drinking recommendations or adults with intellectual disabilities and dysphagia. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 19(2), 153-162. https://doi.org/libaccess.hud.ac.uk/10-1111/5.1468-3148.2005.00250.x

Denny, E., & Weckesser, A. (2019). Qualitative research: what is it and what is not. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 126(3), 369. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15198

Driesneck, M., Sousa, V. D., & Mendes, I. A. C. (2007a). An Overview of Research Designs Relevant to Nursing: Part 2: Qualitative Research Designs. Rev Latino-am Enfermagem (Latin American Journal of Nursing), 15(4), 685. https://doi.org/10.1590/50104-11692007000400025