Nursing Research NUR 3130 Section 8517



Nursing Research Assignment #1

Kathleen Cahill

NUR 3130/Section 8519

New York City College of Technology

Dr. Theresa Keane

September 12, 2012

Nursing research is an important part of nursing. In order for nurses to truly be competent they must stay abreast of the latest research. They must also contribute to it. Nursing research, as defined by Polit and Beck (2010), is the “systematic inquiry designed to develop trustworthy evidence about issues of importance to the nursing profession, including nursing practice, education, administration, and informatics” (p. 4). Different methods of research are used to gain this data and in the following essay I will discuss and compare two separate approaches used for two different scenarios.

In the first scenario we are looking at a quantitative study, which is associated with the positivist paradigm. According to Polit and Beck (2010), “Evidence for a study in the positivist paradigm is gathered systematically, using formal instruments to collect needed information” (p.17). Quantitative research, according to Polit and Beck (2010), requires that the information collected “is numeric information that results from some type of formal measurement and is analyzed with statistical procedures” (p.17). In this study they used BMI measurements; a specific number of people with the same cultural background; said participants were within a particular age range; each randomized group followed a specific protocol; and results were statistically measured. All to see which protocol worked best to promote weight loss/gain, BMI, and abdominal girth. Thus, proving to be measurable and quantitative.

In contrast, the second scenario is a qualitative approach, in which evidence was gathered by talking to elderly people and their family members. As well as, talking with senior center staff, and by observing life on the streets in a poor neighborhood over a 3-year period. They wanted to explore the experience of elders and see how they coped with isolation in an unsafe neighborhood. This scenario is a perfect example of qualitative research or the naturalistic method because, according to Polit and Beck (2010), “naturalistic investigations emphasize understanding the human experience as it is lived, usually through the careful collection and analysis of qualitative materials that are narrative and subjective” (p.17). The study was done with subjective information taken from verbal accounts from the elderly and the staff from the senior center.

“In quantitative studies, concepts are usually called variables. A variable, as the name implies, is something that varies” (Polit & Beck, 2010, p. 64). Of the two given vignettes, the first contains three variables. They are weight, body mass index, and abdominal girth. All of these things can change and vary from person to person making them variables.

According to Houser (2012), “both types of research (qualitative and quantitative) have many characteristics in common, including: a disciplined, rigorous approach based on external evidence; methods that require samples and the cooperation of individuals; a focus on the rights of human subjects and ethical guidelines; and an ultimate aim of discovering new knowledge that can be used to improve nursing practice” (p.37). One of the key differences includes the way the data will look. For instance, the data from scenario one can be presented in a chart or a table with all of the numerical data given under each of the two groups headings, such as original BMI’s, weight gain/loss, abdominal girth, and the results at the 3-month and 6-month follow ups. The information will be “objective, impersonal reports in which the researcher’s opinions are undetectable” (Houser, 2012, p. 37), because the data is numerical and measurable with no human interference. In contrast, the data in scenario two will be presented in a narrative format because according to Welford, Murphy, and Casey (2012), “the goal of qualitative research is to yield rich, in-depth descriptions of phenomena… it is generally descriptive, naming phenomena and positioning relationships… researchers identify patterns or commonalities by inference from the examination of specific instances and events” (p. 29). The statements of all the people interviewed will be recorded and typed out verbatim, then compared and contrasted by the researchers to look for themes within the statements.

Qualitative and quantitative research methods have both benefits and pitfalls. In quantitative research, according to Houser (2012):

reality is objective and can be seen and measured; reality can be separated from context; the researcher is detached; samples represent overall populations as subjects; the design is preconceived and highly controllable; and the reports are objective and impersonal in which the researcher’s opinions are undetectable. (p. 37)

Thus making it more accurate, scientifically, than qualitative research. However, it can also be limited by its “narrow focus”, according to Polit and Beck (2010), because it doesn’t include the human experience as compared with qualitative studies. Qualitative methods are better if you want the human experience to be part of your study. You can’t measure emotions and sometimes they are necessary to get the kind of feedback you need for an overall picture of a situation. We can see in the first scenario that measurements were taken across the board to see what beginning weights and final weights were, but how do we know if all the females were sticking to the aerobic regimen or the diet? This is one of the questions that can arise about the validity of the study, because it relies on human compliance. Both paradigms rely on “human cooperation” in order to “understand people’s characteristics and experiences, researchers must persuade them to participate in the investigation and to speak and act candidly” (Polit & Beck, 2010, p.19) therefore making both research methods fallible.

Studies can be rated on an evidence hierarchy, which rates the “levels of evidence regarding effectiveness of an intervention” (Polit & Beck, 2010). They rank in highest (stronger evidence) to lowest (weaker evidence) order from top to bottom, Ia, Ib, IIa, IIb, III, IV, V, VI, and VII at the base. The first scenario can be placed in level IIa of the evidence hierarchy, as a single randomized controlled trial (RCT) because the subjects were randomized into two groups and both were given an aerobics regimen, one group added a special diet while the other added weight training instead. The second scenario can be placed in level VI of the evidence hierarchy because it was a “single descriptive, qualitative, physiologic study” (Polit & Beck, 2010), which relied upon the testimony of subjects in the study.

In the first study we can conclude that women who do aerobics and weight training will decrease their BMI and abdominal girth more rapidly than those who do aerobics without weight training and do the low carbohydrate diet, but in the long run both methods will work effectively. I can deduce that the weight training proves to have more rapid results than the low carbohydrate diet. In the second study we can gather that the senior center is a vital resource for elderly people in poor urban ghettos, and that it is of great importance that they be able to engage in healthy activities with other people in a safe environment and most of them do not feel safe in their neighborhoods.

In conclusion, both qualitative and quantitative studies are important to the nursing profession, because we need to view people holistically. People cannot just be measured. Life is not that black and white. People have their own stories and feelings and all things need to be considered when addressing issues in the health field.

Resources

Houser, J. (2012). Nursing Research: Reading, Using, and Creating Evidence 2nd ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Essentials of Nursing Research: Appraising Evidence for Nursing Practice. Philadelphia: LippincotWilliams & Wilkins.

Welford C., Murphy K., Casey D. (2012). Demystifying nursing research terminology: Part 2. Nurse researcher. 19, 2, 29-35.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download