Health Services Research: Conceptualization and Methods

Introduction to Conceptualization in Health Services Research

The conceptualization stage in health services research is defined as the process through which researchers specify what they mean when they use particular terms in the research. Conceptualization is primarily concerned with two major steps: the formulation of the problem statement and the definition of the conceptual and operational terms within that problem statement.

Formulating the Problem Statement

In formulating the problem statement, researchers must be specific, clearly identifying the variables, concepts, and measures or indicators that will be studied. Apart from being specific, problem statements must also be verifiable — meaning each variable or concept is not only identifiable but also measurable. These variables and concepts are measured through instruments, which must contain statements phrased affirmatively. Statements in the instrument must also be simple, clear, and unambiguous; researchers must avoid double-barreled questions.

The formulation of the problem statement is perhaps the most important part of the conceptualization process, since it is through this step that researchers learn to distinguish the important concepts and variables that will eventually be measured and analyzed in the study.

Defining Terms: Conceptual and Operational Definitions

The second part of the conceptualization stage involves defining the terms that will be used in the research. Operational definitions are essential in the conceptualization process because terms used in the study are applied within the specific context of that research. For example, if the research problem concerns the effectiveness of "touch therapy" in improving patient recovery, operational definitions of "touch therapy effectiveness" and "patient recovery" must be defined within the context of that particular study.

Placing terms in their proper context avoids confusion that may arise among the audience when reading the research report. Furthermore, defining terms according to their operational use guides researchers to remain within the scope of the study — a scope determined by the definitions formulated during the conceptualization stage.

Review of Related Literature: Levels, Organization, and Purpose

The review of related literature (RRL) is an integral part of research because it informs researchers about what studies have already been conducted on their topic.

Reviews of related literature have different levels of abstraction, with each level becoming more intensive in its relation to the research. These levels serve as the researchers' basis for using the literature in their own study. The levels of abstraction are as follows: similarity in theory or methodology, similarity in concept (the primary structure of the research), similarity in topic, and similarity in the overall study conducted. The last two levels may seem alike at first glance, but similarity in the overall study means there is convergence in topic, theory, and method — with differences found only in the RRL used and the findings of each study. Similarity in theory or methodology, by contrast, refers to studies that employ the same theoretical frameworks as the current research or that share a qualitative or quantitative methodological approach.

Organizing the RRL may be based on either theme or chronology. In thematic organization, materials are grouped according to similarities in their findings. Chronological organization is used primarily in studies where shifts in perspectives over time are analyzed in relation to the research problem.

In summary, the RRL is an integral part of research because it helps researchers identify the "missing links" in the existing body of literature. After identifying these gaps, researchers can determine which aspects of the topic remain unaddressed in previous studies, or which methodologies or theories remain unexplored. The RRL also highlights overlapping points in the literature and identifies recurring or divergent arguments about the research topic or problem.