Research Decisions Quantitative And Qualitative Perspectives Pdf
- and pdf
- Wednesday, April 21, 2021 6:58:16 AM
- 2 comment
File Name: research decisions quantitative and qualitative perspectives .zip
- Quantitative Research Design Pdf 2017
- The difference between quantitative vs. qualitative research
- Research Decisions: Quantitative And Qualitative Perspectives
See what's new with book lending at the Internet Archive. Uploaded by ttscribe6. Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass.
Learn the differences between qualitative data and quantitative data. Quantitative and qualitative research are complementary methods that you can combine in your surveys to get results that are both wide-reaching and deep. Simply put, quantitative data gets you the numbers to prove the broad general points of your research.
Quantitative Research Design Pdf 2017
Guideline developers are increasingly dealing with more difficult decisions concerning whether to recommend complex interventions in complex and highly variable health systems.
There is greater recognition that both quantitative and qualitative evidence can be combined in a mixed-method synthesis and that this can be helpful in understanding how complexity impacts on interventions in specific contexts. This paper aims to clarify the different purposes, review designs, questions, synthesis methods and opportunities to combine quantitative and qualitative evidence to explore the complexity of complex interventions and health systems.
Three case studies of guidelines developed by WHO, which incorporated quantitative and qualitative evidence, are used to illustrate possible uses of mixed-method reviews and evidence. Additional examples of methods that can be used or may have potential for use in a guideline process are outlined. Consideration is given to the opportunities for potential integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence at different stages of the review and guideline process.
Encouragement is given to guideline commissioners and developers and review authors to consider including quantitative and qualitative evidence. Recommendations are made concerning the future development of methods to better address questions in systematic reviews and guidelines that adopt a complexity perspective. When combined in a mixed-method synthesis, quantitative and qualitative evidence can potentially contribute to understanding how complex interventions work and for whom, and how the complex health systems into which they are implemented respond and adapt.
The different purposes and designs for combining quantitative and qualitative evidence in a mixed-method synthesis for a guideline process are described. Questions relevant to gaining an understanding of the complexity of complex interventions and the wider health systems within which they are implemented that can be addressed by mixed-method syntheses are presented.
The practical methodological guidance in this paper is intended to help guideline producers and review authors commission and conduct mixed-method syntheses where appropriate. If more mixed-method syntheses are conducted, guideline developers will have greater opportunities to access this evidence to inform decision-making.
Recognition has grown that while quantitative methods remain vital, they are usually insufficient to address complex health systems related research questions. Introducing change into a complex health system gives rise to emergent reactions, which cannot be fully predicted in advance. Emergent reactions can often only be understood through combining quantitative methods with a more flexible qualitative lens. Publication of guidance on designing complex intervention process evaluations and other works advocating mixed-methods approaches to intervention research have stimulated better quality evidence for synthesis.
Mixed-method research and review definitions are outlined in box 1. A mixed-method synthesis can integrate quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method evidence or data from primary studies.
Thomas and Harden further define three ways in which reviews are mixed. The types of synthesis method used eg, statistical meta-analysis and qualitative synthesis. Qualitative methods of data collection may include, for example, interviews, focus groups, observations and analysis of documents.
For example, qualitative data from case studies, grey literature reports and open-ended questions from surveys. This paper is one of a series that aims to explore the implications of complexity for systematic reviews and guideline development, commissioned by WHO. This paper is concerned with the methodological implications of including quantitative and qualitative evidence in mixed-method systematic reviews and guideline development for complex interventions.
The guidance was developed through a process of bringing together experts in the field, literature searching and consensus building with end users guideline developers, clinicians and reviewers.
We clarify the different purposes, review designs, questions and synthesis methods that may be applicable to combine quantitative and qualitative evidence to explore the complexity of complex interventions and health systems.
Three case studies of WHO guidelines that incorporated quantitative and qualitative evidence are used to illustrate possible uses of mixed-method reviews and mechanisms of integration table 1 , online supplementary files 1—3. Opportunities for potential integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence at different stages of the review and guideline process are presented. Encouragement is given to guideline commissioners and developers and review authors to consider including quantitative and qualitative evidence in guidelines of complex interventions that take a complexity perspective and health systems focus.
Designs and methods and their use or applicability in guidelines and systematic reviews taking a complexity perspective. The first paper in this series 17 outlines aspects of complexity associated with complex interventions and health systems that can potentially be explored by different types of evidence, including synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence.
Petticrew et al 17 distinguish between a complex interventions perspective and a complex systems perspective. Aspects of complexity associated with implementation of complex interventions in health systems that could potentially be addressed with a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence are summarised in table 2. Another paper in the series outlines criteria used in a new evidence to decision framework for making decisions about complex interventions implemented in complex systems, against which the need for quantitative and qualitative evidence can be mapped.
Mixed-method syntheses of quantitative and qualitative evidence can also help with understanding of whether there has been theory failure and or implementation failure. The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group provide additional guidance on exploring implementation and theory failure that can be adapted to address aspects of complexity of complex interventions when implemented in health systems.
Health-system complexity-related questions that a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence could address derived from Petticrew et al For a research question about Implementation: How and why does the implementation of this intervention vary across contexts? For an effectiveness review: Do the effects of the intervention appear to be context dependent?
It may not be apparent which aspects of complexity or which elements of the complex intervention or health system can be explored in a guideline process, or whether combining qualitative and quantitative evidence in a mixed-method synthesis will be useful, until the available evidence is scoped and mapped. Following a scoping exercise and definition of key questions, the next step in the guideline development process is to identify existing or commission new systematic reviews to locate and summarise the best available evidence in relation to each question.
Further understanding of health system complexity was facilitated through the conduct of additional country-level case studies that contributed to an overall understanding of what worked and what happened when lay health worker interventions were implemented. See table 1 online supplementary file 2.
There are a few existing examples, which we draw on in this paper, but integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence in a mixed-method synthesis is relatively uncommon in a guideline process. Box 2 includes a set of key questions that guideline developers and review authors contemplating combining quantitative and qualitative evidence in mixed-methods design might ask.
Subsequent sections provide more information and signposting to further reading to help address these key questions. HOW: How easy is it to disaggregate quantitative and qualitative data from mixed-method studies? How will quantitative and qualitative evidence be integrated? Through a:. WHICH: Which mixed-method designs, methodologies and methods best fit into a guideline process to inform recommendations?
Petticrew et al 17 define the different aspects of complexity and examples of complexity-related questions that can potentially be explored in guidelines and systematic reviews taking a complexity perspective. Relevant aspects of complexity outlined by Petticrew e t al 17 are summarised in table 2 below, together with the corresponding questions that could be addressed in a synthesis combining qualitative and quantitative evidence.
Importantly, the aspects of complexity and their associated concepts of interest have however yet to be translated fully in primary health research or systematic reviews. There are few known examples where selected complexity concepts have been used to analyse or reanalyse a primary intervention study.
Most notable is Chandler e t al 26 who specifically set out to identify and translate a set of relevant complexity theory concepts for application in health systems research. Chandler then reanalysed a trial process evaluation using selected complexity theory concepts to better understand the complex causal pathway in the health system that explains some aspects of complexity in table 2.
The criteria reflect WHO norms and values and take account of a complexity perspective. The framework can be used by guideline development groups as a menu to decide which criteria to prioritise, and which study types and synthesis methods can be used to collect evidence for each criterion.
Many of the criteria and their related questions can be addressed using a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence: the balance of benefits and harms, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, societal implications and feasibility see table 3. Similar aspects in the DECIDE framework 15 could also be addressed using synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence.
Integrate evidence to decision framework criteria, example questions and types of studies to potentially address these questions derived from Rehfeuss et al Quantitative evidence can quantify the difference in effect, but does not answer the question of how.
For anchor and compass questions, additional application of a theory eg, complexity theory can help focus evidence synthesis and presentation to explore and explain complexity issues. If a complexity perspective, and certain criteria within evidence to decision frameworks, is deemed relevant and desirable by guideline developers, it is only possible to pursue a complexity perspective if the evidence is available.
Careful scoping using knowledge maps or scoping reviews will help inform development of questions that are answerable with available evidence. This should not mean that the original questions developed for which no evidence was found when scoping the literature were not important. An important function of creating a knowledge map is also to identify gaps to inform a future research agenda. The shift towards integration of qualitative and quantitative evidence in primary research has, in recent years, begun to be mirrored within research synthesis.
Advocating the integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence assumes a complementarity between research methodologies, and a need for both types of evidence to inform policy and practice. Below, we briefly outline the current designs for integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence within a mixed-method review or synthesis.
One of the early approaches to integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence detailed by Sandelowski et al 32 advocated three basic review designs: segregated, integrated and contingent designs, which have been further developed by Heyvaert et al 33 box 3. Conventional separate distinction between quantitative and qualitative approaches based on the assumption they are different entities and should be treated separately; can be distinguished from each other; their findings warrant separate analyses and syntheses.
Ultimately, the separate synthesis results can themselves be synthesised. The methodological differences between qualitative and quantitative studies are minimised as both are viewed as producing findings that can be readily synthesised into one another because they address the same research purposed and questions. Transformation involves either turning qualitative data into quantitative quantitising or quantitative findings are turned into qualitative qualitising to facilitate their integration.
Takes a cyclical approach to synthesis, with the findings from one synthesis informing the focus of the next synthesis, until all the research objectives have been addressed. Studies are not necessarily grouped and categorised as qualitative or quantitative. A recent review of more than systematic reviews 34 combining quantitative and qualitative evidence identified two main synthesis designs—convergent and sequential.
In a convergent design, qualitative and quantitative evidence is collated and analysed in a parallel or complementary manner, whereas in a sequential synthesis, the collation and analysis of quantitative and qualitative evidence takes place in a sequence with one synthesis informing the other box 4.
Qualitative and quantitative research is collected and analysed at the same time in a parallel or complementary manner. Integration can occur at three points:. All included studies are analysed using the same methods and results presented together.
As only one synthesis method is used, data transformation occurs qualitised or quantised. Usually addressed one review question. Qualitative and quantitative data are analysed and presented separately but integrated using a further synthesis method; eg, narratively, tables, matrices or reanalysing evidence. The results of both syntheses are combined in a third synthesis. Usually addresses an overall review question with subquestions. Qualitative and quantitative data are analysed and presented separately with integration occurring in the interpretation of results in the discussion section.
Usually addresses two or more complimentary review questions. A two-phase approach, data collection and analysis of one type of evidence eg, qualitative , occurs after and is informed by the collection and analysis of the other type eg, quantitative.
Usually addresses an overall question with subquestions with both syntheses complementing each other. The three case studies table 1 , online supplementary files 1—3 illustrate the diverse combination of review designs and synthesis methods that were considered the most appropriate for specific guidelines.
In this section, we draw on examples where specific review designs and methods have been or can be used to explore selected aspects of complexity in guidelines or systematic reviews. We also identify other review methods that could potentially be used to explore aspects of complexity.
Of particular note, we could not find any specific examples of systematic methods to synthesise highly diverse research designs as advocated by Petticrew e t al 17 and summarised in tables 2 and 3. For example, we could not find examples of methods to synthesise qualitative studies, case studies, quantitative longitudinal data, possibly historical data, effectiveness studies providing evidence of differential effects across different contexts, and system modelling studies eg, agent-based modelling to explore system adaptivity.
There are different ways that quantitative and qualitative evidence can be integrated into a review and then into a guideline development process. In practice, some methods enable integration of different types of evidence in a single synthesis, while in other methods, the single systematic review may include a series of stand-alone reviews or syntheses that are then combined in a cross-study synthesis.
The difference between quantitative vs. qualitative research
Guideline developers are increasingly dealing with more difficult decisions concerning whether to recommend complex interventions in complex and highly variable health systems. There is greater recognition that both quantitative and qualitative evidence can be combined in a mixed-method synthesis and that this can be helpful in understanding how complexity impacts on interventions in specific contexts. This paper aims to clarify the different purposes, review designs, questions, synthesis methods and opportunities to combine quantitative and qualitative evidence to explore the complexity of complex interventions and health systems. Three case studies of guidelines developed by WHO, which incorporated quantitative and qualitative evidence, are used to illustrate possible uses of mixed-method reviews and evidence. Additional examples of methods that can be used or may have potential for use in a guideline process are outlined. Consideration is given to the opportunities for potential integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence at different stages of the review and guideline process. Encouragement is given to guideline commissioners and developers and review authors to consider including quantitative and qualitative evidence.
Researchers often have issues choosing which research method to go with: quantitative or qualitative research methods? Many incorrectly think the two terms can be used interchangeably. Qualitative research is regarded as exploratory and is used to uncover trends in thoughts and opinions, while quantitative research is used to quantify the problem by way of generating numerical data or data that can be transformed into usable statistics. At the end of this article, you will understand why you should consider using quantitative research instead of qualitative method in your research surveys. Qualitative research is a process of real-life inquiry that aims to understand social phenomena. It is a scientific research method used to gather non-numerical data.
Research Decisions: Quantitative And Qualitative Perspectives
Quantitative Research Design Pdf The evaluation. List of top ivy league universities. Here you can download all books for free in PDF or Epub format. A variable is a characteristic of a unit being observed that may assume more than one of a.
By Dr. Saul McLeod , updated Jump to Quantitative Research Data. Qualitative research is the process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting non-numerical data, such as language.
For this issue of JBE, Zyphur and Pierides J Bus Ethics 1 :1—16, have written a paper on a concept that they have labeled relational validity. PDF Childhood obesity has reached epidemic levels in developed as well as in developing countries. Quantitative research allows you to measure and examine the data. Handbook of research on nanomaterials, nanochemistry and smart materials.
When to use qualitative vs. quantitative research
Ни с чем подобным мы еще не сталкивались. - Он замолчал, словно подбирая нужные слова. - Этот шифр взломать невозможно. Сьюзан посмотрела на него и едва не рассмеялась. Невозможно. Что это должно означать.
Хорошо, - вздохнул он, всем своим видом признавая поражение. Его испанский тут же потерял нарочитый акцент. - Я не из севильской полиции. Меня прислала сюда американская правительственная организация, с тем чтобы я нашел кольцо. Это все, что я могу вам сказать.
Но Беккер не слушал, что тот. Он рассчитал все. Рука консьержа только что покинула ячейку под номером 301. Беккер поблагодарил его и быстро зашагал, ища глазами лифт. Туда и обратно, - повторил он мысленно. ГЛАВА 31 Сьюзан вернулась в Третий узел. После разговора со Стратмором она начала беспокоиться о безопасности Дэвида, а ее воображение рисовало страшные картины.
- Надеюсь, удача не оставит. Беккер опустился на колени на холодный каменный пол и низко наклонил голову. Человек, сидевший рядом, посмотрел на него в недоумении: так не принято было вести себя в храме Божьем.