Ethical Consideration and Telehealth

¶ … Telehealth Technology Chronic obstructive pulmonary (COP) is one of the serious diseases in the United States that places a great burden on patients as well as healthcare systems based on its associated high rate of hospitalization, outpatients visit and readmissions. (Sarah et al. 2016). Over the years, the COP has become a major public health issue globally with more than 65 million cases. (Sarah et al. 2016). In 2010, the United States recorded a direct cost of $32.1 billion based on the prevalence of the COP disease.

In the UK, 1.6% of the population is suffering from the COP contributing to the burden of over £800 million per annum with the direct medical costs of approximately £625 million annually. (Sarah et al. 2016). Despite its associated direct costs burden, the prevalence of the COP is likely to increase because of a rise in aging population.(Sarah et al. 2016). The telehealth has been considered as an effective healthcare intervention to manage the COP disease. The telehealth is a workable and attractive solution capable of meeting the healthcare needs of people.

Brewster, et al. (2013) define home telehealth as an exchange of health information from patients to healthcare professionals through electronic devices. (Brewster, et al. 2013). Typically, home telehealth can deliver significant benefits for patients suffering from COP disease that includes assisting in reducing mortality rates, department visits, and healthcare costs.(Sarah et al. 2016). Despite the associated benefits of the telehealth, Sarah et al. (2013) did not provide the data to support their assertion that home telehealth reduces the healthcare costs, departmental visit, and mortality rates.

Gorst, Armitage, Brownsell, & Hawley, (2014) argue that 20% of patients using the telehealth later abandon it and 32% of patients refuse to use it. Moreover, patients' involvement in the home telehealth's published research is still lacking. Patients also face technical problems representing a barrier to using the telehealth technology. Additionally, shortage of patients who have used the telehealth has been a barrier to conducting the telehealth research.

Moreover, several patients suffering from COP disease are unable to manipulate the telehealth equipment serving as a barrier in using COP patients for a research purpose. (Greenhalgh, Wherton, Sugarhood, et al. (2013). This study provides a critique of the research carried out by Sarah et al. (2016) titled "It's sort of a lifeline": Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients' experiences of home telehealth." (Sarah et al. 2016 p 60). Method and Design An identification of a method of data collection is very critical in an empirical research.

Typically, the qualitative and quantitative method are the major strategies used to collect and data. Although, Sarah et al. (2016) use a qualitative technique to collect data, however, the authors do not compare both the qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection before choosing an appropriate data collection strategy. A comparative analysis of both research methods is essential to assist in identifying their shortcomings and benefits. Compared to Brewster et al. (2013) who use the mixed method for the data collection and data analysis, Sarah et al.

(2016) may encounter several shortcomings by using the qualitative research. A data collection through qualitative technique is time-consuming and not cost-effective compared with quantitative research. While Sarah et al. (2016) claim using the qualitative research to collect and analyze data, an overview of the author's research design reveals that the researchers use some elements of the quantitative technique in their research design. For example, the demographic data of the participants are presented in numbers showing the age of the participants.

Another shortcoming of the authors' research design is that the number of participants used to collect data are very small. The participants are only eight in numbers consisting of three men and five women. Several benefits the authors can derive from using a large sample. First, a large sample assists in deliver a better representative of the sample population limiting the influence of extreme observation and outliers. A large sample also provides a better picture for the analysis.

By using a small sample for the analysis, the authors risk of producing inaccurate results. It is essential to realize that the larger the sample size, the lower the margin of error in the research findings. While the researchers use the open-ended interview to collect data, however, they do not provide the samples of the interview questions in the appendix to ascertain whether the questions are tailored to achieve the research objectives. The data analysis is conducted using the IPA involving two-stage interpretation.

While the analysis is properly carried out, the authors do not discuss the strategy in identifying bias during the interview process. Essentially, a researcher ought to eliminate a bias in a study to enhance reliability, and validity of the research findings. Ethical Consideration Ethical consideration is very critical in a health care research because of the involvement of human participants. Ethical consideration is an integration of the ethical principles in a qualitative research. The obligations are to protect the participants from potential harms.

Despite the importance of the ethical consideration in a research, Sarah et al. (2016) do not provide an elaborate discussion about the method the authors employ in protecting the participants. The only ethical consideration followed in the study is by obtaining the consent from the participants. This ethical procedure is not enough since the research involves human participants. Moreover, the researcher does not discuss the strategy they employ in seeking for the approval of the IRB (institutional review board).

The IRB is an independent ethical committee designed to monitor, approve and review a healthcare research. The IRB conducts a risk-benefit analysis to determine whether a research should be done. Since the authors did not seek approval from the IRB before using human participants for the research, the authors risk harming the participants. Moreover, the author did not present the method of protecting the private information of the participants. A researcher is obliged to protect the private information of the participants to maintain a confidentiality of participants.

Since all the participants are suffering from the Chronic obstructive pulmonary, thus, all their information should be kept confidential and not revealed to the third party. The authors also did not provide the copy of the consent agreement in the appendix to prove they actually seek for the consent of the participants before carrying out the research. Although, Sarah et al. (2016) provide the elaborate research findings, however, the authors do not.