Comparing Research Methodologies in Diabetes Care Studies
This paper examines and compares three research studies related to diabetes care management, each employing a different methodological approach. The qualitative study by Ong et al. (2014) explored barriers and facilitators to self-monitoring of blood glucose in Malaysian patients. The quantitative study by Stevens et al. (2015) assessed quality of life among diabetes patients receiving home care in Los Angeles. The mixed-methods study by Wildeboer et al. (2018) investigated general practice staff perspectives on shared decision-making tools. The paper evaluates each study's internal and external validity, identifies limitations, and proposes alternative methodological designs that could have strengthened each study's findings and generalizability.
- Introduction: Overview of three diabetes studies and comparison goals
- Comparing Methodologies and Designs: Description of each study's design and data collection
- External and Internal Validity Issues: Validity strengths and weaknesses across all three studies
- How Different Methodologies and Designs Might Have Been Beneficial: Alternative research approaches for each study
- Conclusion: Summary of trade-offs among research methodology types
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Clearly organizes a three-way methodological comparison using a consistent framework — each study is introduced with its design, data collection method, and key findings before being critically evaluated.
- Distinguishes meaningfully between internal and external validity for each study, providing specific contextual reasons (e.g., cultural factors, sample size, geographic setting) rather than generic critiques.
- Proposes concrete, feasible alternative methodologies for each study, demonstrating applied understanding of research design trade-offs.
- The comparison table in the appendix effectively synthesizes key study attributes for quick reference, reinforcing the analytical argument made in the prose.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative critical appraisal of research methodology — a core DNP competency. Rather than simply summarizing studies, it systematically evaluates each against validity criteria and then applies constructive counterfactual reasoning ("what could have been done differently"), showing sophisticated engagement with research design principles.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a four-part analytical structure: (1) a brief introduction naming the three studies and framing the comparison task; (2) a methodology comparison section describing each study's design and data collection approach; (3) a validity evaluation section assessing internal and external validity for each study; and (4) an alternatives section proposing improved or supplementary methodologies. A brief conclusion synthesizes the trade-offs among qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches. An appendix comparison table supports the analysis.
Introduction
Three studies relating to the PICOT framework of this proposed study are the qualitative research study by Ong, Chua, and Ng (2014) on barriers and facilitators of self-monitoring blood sugar levels for diabetes patients, the quantitative study by Stevens, Shi, Vane, Nie, and Peters (2015) on the experiences of diabetes patients receiving home care, and the mixed-methods research study by Wildeboer, du Pon, Schuling, Haaijer-Ruskamp, and Denig (2018) on shared decision making among general practice staff and diabetes patients. Each study utilized a different research method to obtain data on topics related to diabetes management. These studies are compared in this paper, their methodologies and designs discussed, their internal and external validity issues evaluated, and possible alternative methodologies and designs are identified that the researchers could have used to make their studies more beneficial.
Comparing Methodologies and Designs
Ong et al. (2014) conducted a qualitative study, the design of which focused on identifying barriers and facilitators that patients with type 2 diabetes face when attempting to monitor their own blood sugar levels. The method of data collection was the interview method. Semi-structured interviews were conducted by the researchers with diabetes patients, and transcripts of those interviews were analyzed to identify themes that could help explain what helped and hindered patients in the course of self-monitoring of blood glucose.
Stevens et al. (2015) conducted a quantitative study, the design of which focused on evaluating the quality of life among diabetes patients receiving home care in Los Angeles. A cross-sectional longitudinal survey was administered to obtain the study's data. Quality of life was measured using a primary care tool, and statistical significance was found among the correlations between home care and quality of life for the diabetes patients in the sample.
Wildeboer et al. (2018) conducted a mixed-methods study, the design of which focused on how general practice staff perceived the use of a patient-oriented treatment decision aid in shared decision making for patients with type 2 diabetes. The method included both interviews and self-reported surveys collected from general practice staff. Findings showed that various factors influenced whether staff members viewed the decision aid as helpful, but the majority of staff viewed it favorably.
External and Internal Validity Issues
The research appears to have been conducted correctly in each of the three studies, and thus all three can be said to possess internal validity. However, when it comes to external validity, it is not as straightforward to claim that the same findings would be replicated in other settings. For example, the study by Ong et al. (2014) was conducted in a hospital setting in Malaysia among diabetes patients there. The obstacles to self-monitoring and the supports that the same sample population encountered in the Malaysian hospital might not be the same as those experienced by a population in the United States, due to differences in support networks, culture, and environmental factors.
The external validity of the study by Wildeboer et al. (2018) likewise suffers from similar issues, as the findings stem from a small sample of practitioners in a specific region. Cultural factors might produce different outcomes if this study were replicated in different parts of the world. The internal validity of the study is reasonable, as the steps taken to collect data are clearly described and the factors and variables analyzed are relevant to the issue examined. However, the use of self-reported data for the survey may weaken the validity of the findings, given the inherently subjective nature of self-reported information.
The study by Stevens et al. (2015) has the strongest external validity of the three, as the sample population is based in Los Angeles — a region with a considerably diverse population — making it more likely that the findings could be replicated in different settings. Additionally, the sample size is large enough to be meaningful, which further supports external validity. Internal validity for the study is strong, as the steps taken to obtain data are clearly defined and the variables identified are directly relevant to the study's research question.
Conclusion
Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research designs all have their benefits, but each offers different insights into a study. Qualitative methodologies tend to provide richer understanding of which variables and factors are meaningful regarding a topic. Quantitative methodologies provide statistical data that can be analyzed using formal tests. Mixed-methods designs offer both data sets and contextual insights, but can be time consuming and may involve smaller sample sizes, thereby limiting external validity. Each of these approaches should be carefully considered when identifying the right methodology for a given study. More information on research design considerations can be found through resources such as the National Institutes of Health research and training division.
References
Ong, W. M., Chua, S. S., & Ng, C. J. (2014). Barriers and facilitators to self-monitoring of blood glucose in people with type 2 diabetes using insulin: A qualitative study. Patient Preference and Adherence, 8, 237.
Stevens, G. D., Shi, L., Vane, C., Nie, X., & Peters, A. L. (2015). Primary care medical home experience and health-related quality of life among adult Medicaid patients with type 2 diabetes. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 30(2), 161–168.
Wildeboer, A., du Pon, E., Schuling, J., Haaijer-Ruskamp, F. M., & Denig, P. (2018). Views of general practice staff about the use of a patient-oriented treatment decision aid in shared decision making for patients with type 2 diabetes: A mixed-methods study. Health Expectations, 21(1), 64–74.
Appendix: Comparison Table
Barriers and Facilitators to Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in People with Type 2 Diabetes Using Insulin
Author: Ong, W. M., Chua, S. S., & Ng, C. J. | Source: Patient Preference and Adherence, 8 | Year: 2014
Research Topic: Barriers and supports for self-monitoring of blood sugar
Research Method: Semi-structured interviews (qualitative)
Sample Population: Malaysian type 2 diabetes patients
Findings: Emotions, pain, cost, and support network are key factors in determining barriers and supports in self-monitoring experiences
Primary Care Medical Home Experience and Health-Related Quality of Life among Adult Medicaid Patients with Type 2 Diabetes
Author: Stevens, G. D., Shi, L., Vane, C., Nie, X., & Peters, A. L. | Source: Journal of General Internal Medicine, 30(2) | Year: 2015
Research Topic: Quality of life among diabetes patients receiving home care
Research Method: Cross-sectional survey method (quantitative)
Sample Population: Home care patients in Los Angeles
Findings: Home care was found to be associated with a higher quality of life among diabetes patients
Views of General Practice Staff about the Use of a Patient-Oriented Treatment Decision Aid in Shared Decision Making for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Mixed-Methods Study
Author: Wildeboer, A., du Pon, E., Schuling, J., Haaijer-Ruskamp, F. M., & Denig, P. | Source: Health Expectations, 21(1) | Year: 2018
Research Topic: How general care providers view patient-centered care and shared decision making for diabetes patients
Research Method: Mixed-methods: interviews and self-reported survey
Sample Population: Routine diabetes care providers
Findings: Sharing decision making with patients using the decision aid was viewed favorably by care providers
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.