Pain & Pain Relief Following Hip Replacement Surgery a Qualitative Study
Qualitative research Assignment
Research design relies on the appropriateness of either qualitative or quantitative methods in achieving the objectives of the study. In the study, two research studies that use these different methods to accomplish their objectives are evaluated. One of the studies uses descriptive qualitative approach while the other exploits cross-sectional survey.
The analysis in this section requires that the analyst compares the article to quantitative articles he/she read - in general (the difference between the two types of studies) (LoBiondo-Wood and Haber, 2014). The differences in these two methodologies in the studies are evident. For instance, the descriptive qualitative approach is explorative in nature since it offers detailed explanation for the research topic while the cross-sectional survey focuses on enumerating and categorizing features through statistical figures in order to explain its observation (Explorable.com, n.d). The qualitative and descriptive approach is ideal for early phases of a research while the cross-sectional survey approach offers a clear illustration of the research when evaluated against the qualitative method. The qualitative approach utilizes interviews in gathering data while the quantitative cross-sectional survey method uses surveys in gathering data. The qualitative approach presents data information of words while the cross-sectional survey approach uses tables containing statistics and numbers (Explorable.com, n.d). The qualitative approach in Joelsson, Olsson and Jakobsson study is subjective and useful in understanding and even explaining reasons for the patient's behavior when in pain following hip surgery (Joelsson, Olsson & Jakobsson, 2010). On the other hand, the cross-sectional survey by Lindberg et al. is objective because it focuses on measuring and analyzing precise aspects of pain in patients after orthopedic surgery (Lindberg et al., 2013). The qualitative descriptive approach used in one of the studies uses unstructured or even semi-structured approach compared to the structured quantitative cross-sectional survey in the other. The quantitative approach expresses its findings in graphs, pie charts and tables while findings in the qualitative approach are presented in terms of words or images (Explorable.com, n.d).
Subsequently, the researcher identifies similarities & differences. Similarities in the qualitative and quantitative research studies are also evident. The qualitative approach offers insights about the topic; furthermore, the quantitative cross-sectional survey quantifies insight regarding the topic all of which are useful in generalizing the results to a larger environment. The qualitative approach is useful in uncovering trends about the study topic and dealing with the issue, this is also true in the cross-sectional survey since it is useful in formulating facts and uncovering pattern within the study (Wyse, 2011). The cross-sectional survey quantifies the problem through numerical data into useful statistics. Similar to the cross-sectional survey, the qualitative approach is used to understand the underlying motivations and reasons behind behaviors in the study (Wyse, 2011). In both quantitative and qualitative studies, similarities are evident in the way inference is employed as well as in the way that the public processing method is used in the two approaches (Research-methodology.com, n.d). Both quantitative and qualitative approaches in the two evaluated studies start with objectives and seem to require a strategy for investigating the various attributes in the studies. Although the two studies appear to study a certain phenomenon in their research, the qualitative approach usually appears to study people mostly while the quantitative approach usually measures frequency of certain quantifiable aspects of individuals in the study. The two research studies are similar since the methods used are restricted by variables (Wyse, 2011; Research-methodology.com, n.d).
Qualitative Research Process
The qualitative study benefits from the foundations of a quality framework that enables the researchers to evaluate the effectiveness of the research design while developing features useful in maximizing the usefulness of the several qualitative research procedures. The study benefits from integral quality framework that is credible, useful, analyzable, and transparent. The four components are evident in the study in the way they guide the researchers in developing and carrying out the qualitative research (Research Design Review, 2011).
Statement on the Phenomenon of Interest:
With regards to the statement on the phenomenon of Interest this analysis focused on three questions. The first was whether the phenomenon of interest was clearly stated for the reader (LoBiondo-Wood and Haber, 2014). In the qualitative study, the phenomenon involves studying pain and pain relief in patients who have undergone surgery for hip replacement. The phenomenon is clearly articulated throughout the study making it simple for readers to understand. The second question focused on the justification for using a qualitative method (LoBiondo-Wood and Haber, 2014). The use of qualitative method is justified by the fact the study needed to study patients' experiences of pain, which is a human behavior for which qualitative approach is ideal.
The third question was, "what are the philosophical underpinnings of the research method? (LoBiondo-Wood and Haber, 2014)" Clearly, the philosophical underpinnings associated with qualitative research get different considerations from various researchers and general practice scholars; however, the following is a brief summary of the underpinnings. The interactive and interpretive quality of this method reflects assumption in epistemology and ontology that differ from the conventional quantitative methods (Jaye, 2002). Therefore qualitative research being interpretive, it assumes reality to be socially constructed without one distinctively observable reality. Instead, the underpinning considers the existence of various interpretations or realities within a single event (Merriam & Merriam, 2009). Hence, researchers never find knowledge but rather construct it through constructivism. Apart from constructivism, phenomenologies as well as symbolic interactions are essential underpinnings in qualitative research. In early 20th century, Edmund Husserl and Alfred Schutz established phenomenology as mainly oriented toward social science. Through phenomenology, Husserl denoted the study of how people describe and experience things through their senses (Merriam & Merriam, 2009). In addition, symbolic interactionism that is often linked to George Herbert Mead focuses on interpretation and meaning specifically developed as people interacted (Merriam & Merriam, 2009). The other underpinning for qualitative method is critical research, which traverses mere exposure and interpretations of knowledge in people aimed at analyzing and challenging with the objective of transforming and even empowering. Another underpinning is postmodernism that affects the thinking with regard to interpretive research and critical research. In this underpinning, rationality, certainties, and scientific method in the contemporary world are no longer significant since the approach believes in the existence of various truths instead of one ultimate truth (Merriam & Merriam, 2009).
With regards to the purpose of the study this analysis focused on two questions. The first question was, "What is the purpose of the study (LoBiondo-Wood and Haber, 2014)?" The purpose of the study entails the description of pain and pain relief by patients who have undergone surgery for hip replacement. The second question was, "what is the projected significance of the work to nursing (LoBiondo-Wood and Haber, 2014)?" The projected significance in the study involves shedding more light on active improvement necessary in managing postoperative pain specifically in the initial few days following the surgery. This means giving patients extra attention in the first postoperative phase, which is essential in developing and improving the clinical practice (Joelsson, Olsson & Jakobsson, 2010).
With regards to the method used in the study this analysis focused on three questions. The first question was whether the method used to collect data was compatible with the purpose of the research (LoBiondo-Wood and Haber, 2014)? The answer to this question is yes. The qualitative inductive method used is ideal since it allows the patients used in the study to express their experiences of pain, which is the key phenomenon in the study. The second question analyzed whether the method was adequate to address the phenomenon of interest (LoBiondo-Wood and Haber, 2014)? Once again, this analysis found that the method is adequate in answering patient-centered clinical issues regarding the pain they experience after undergoing hip surgery, which is the phenomenon under study. The method allows patients to express their behavior, opinions, and feeling about the pain to provide different versions of their experiences. The last question was if a particular approach is used to guide the inquiry, does the researcher complete the study according to the process described (LoBiondo-Wood and Haber, 2014)? It is not guaranteed that the researcher will strictly follow the described process; however, the qualitative approach allows the researcher to use semi-structured or unstructured approach in the methodology.
In the analysis the sampling focused on two aspects. Firstly, the analysis reviewed what type of sampling was used and whether it was appropriate given the particular method? (LoBiondo-Wood and Haber, 2014). The study uses quota sampling with 15 participants whose age ranges from 55 to 75 years and the individuals are male and female (Joelsson, Olsson & Jakobsson, 2010). The technique is appropriate since it focuses on individuals likely to have insight into the study phenomenon. The second question was whether the informants who were chosen appropriate to inform the research (Joelsson, Olsson & Jakobsson, 2010)? The answer is yes. The selected individuals were diagnosed with osteoarthritis and had limited mobility,…