Neonatal Nurses' Perceptions of Clinical Research Participation

Introduction and Study Aims

This paper examines a qualitative study titled Nurse-Led Clinical Research: Neonatal Nurses' Perceptions and Experiences. The aim of the study is to understand the experiences of clinical nurses in conducting and utilizing clinical research within their neonatal setting.

Research Design

This is a qualitative study of five neonatal nurses who were interviewed using semi-structured, face-to-face interviews to obtain the study data. It was a phenomenology-based study, meaning it was designed to examine the overall structure of the nurses' experiences (Husserl 1962).

The study explored and examined the presuppositions of the nurses being interviewed. Specifically, the researcher wanted to probe for attitudes and barriers to research participation within the neonatal setting. A second key feature was the researcher's intentional selection of nurses for the study: nurses were recruited from two designated neonatal metropolitan nurseries. The final key feature was that nurses were interviewed away from their work setting and open-ended questions were used throughout the interview.

The research design is appropriate for this particular study because it allows for full disclosure of the reasons behind why the nurses are not seeking to participate in or use clinical research. By conducting the study outside their workplace, the nurses could speak freely and openly about their workplace perceptions. The small sample size was appropriate, as no new trends emerged after interviewing five nurses, indicating that the primary reasons had been identified. The use of open-ended questions ensured that nurses could fully answer each question according to their personal knowledge and interpretation, allowing for complete disclosure of all relevant reasons.

The study participants were five nurses from two different Australian metropolitan hospitals, all working in neonatal wards. The sample was selected voluntarily: a flier advertising the study was posted at each location, and nurses who wished to participate contacted the researcher directly.

This sampling approach was appropriate for the study. According to an article by Cynthia Russell on qualitative research modeling:

Sampling and Data Collection

"The emergent nature of qualitative research that results from the interaction between data collection and data analysis requires that investigators not prespecify a sample for data collection in strict terms, lest important data sources be overlooked. In quantitative studies, the ideal sampling standard is random sampling. Most qualitative studies use purposeful (or purposive) sampling, a conscious selection of a small number of data sources that meet particular criteria." (Russell 2003)

For this particular study, the neonatal wards at two different hospitals were chosen, and volunteers were verified as working in those wards. The sampling clearly met these criteria, given that each nurse had similar responses and experiences.

Data were collected using one-on-one, face-to-face interviews with the volunteers, conducted off-site at a location convenient for the nurses. The interviews used open-ended questions and lasted between 24 and 55 minutes. All interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed for review. Conclusions and study results were based on trends identified across interview responses.

The data collection method was appropriate for the research design and study question. This was a grounded study intended to identify trends and explain a phenomenon in a way that is accessible to future researchers (Strauss 1990). Conducting interviews with open-ended questions and audio-recording all sessions for accuracy prevented errors or misinterpretations. Eliciting questions and answers outside the workplace was also important for this particular phenomenon, ensuring that the nurses had the freedom to answer honestly and without fear of retribution from their employers.

The researchers determined the sample size as the study progressed. After each interview, the transcript was reviewed and compared to previous transcripts to locate emerging trends. If new information was still being provided by participants, another participant was sought. After five participants, no new information emerged and the study was closed.