The study by Flynn et al. (2013) is a quantitative retrospective cohort study conducted to determine what types of patients were visiting the primary care, express care and emergency department of a group practice facility over the course of a year. Patient typology was based on whether the individual required an interpreter or not and whether the patient had mental health issues. Flynn et al. (2013) stated that the purpose of their study was “to examine health care utilization patterns of adult outpatients requiring interpreters, with a focus on the PC [primary care] setting” (p. 387). They alsos identified a secondary aim, which they described as “to compare frequencies of mental health diagnoses and somatic symptoms between patients requiring interpreters and those not requiring interpreter services” (Flynn et al., 2013, p. 387). No specific research question was identified in the study, but a hypothesis was stated along with the purpose statement made by the researchers. Flynn et al. (2013) hypothesized that “patients requiring interpreters would have a greater number of visits/encounters over the study period, as compared to patients not requiring interpreters” (p. 387). Neither a null nor an alternative hypothesis was provided. The hypothesis...
The purpose and hypothesis aligned with the design of the study and the method used to obtain data for analysis.
The method used to obtain data to examine a 1 year time period at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Visits were counted for adult patients (18 years +) who had one or more outpatient visit to the Clinic’s facilities over the 1 year time period. Visits were counted via the electronic ID affixed to every visitor to the Clinic and obtained from electronic medical records maintained by the Clinic. Multivariable linear regression was used to analyze the data once it was obtained.
The alignment of theory, problem, purpose and research aim, design and hypotheses was described well by the researchers well in the introduction to the study. They supplied a clear rationale for their methods and approach and used suitable evidence to justify why they were conducting the study in this manner. They noted that “language can be a meaningful barrier to health care access for individuals with limited English proficiency, including immigrants and refugees” (Flynn et al., 2013, p. 386). They also noted that they were filling a gap in knowledge about the patterns of hospital…
