Standards, Challenges, And Implications For Health Design Qualitative Research

Health Design  Qualitative Research

The existing declaration standards for qualitative research standards often take the form of a control list to be completed with a review of the review, allowing examiners to quickly identify methodological problems and ensure adequate reports. 

The now-ubiquitous quality of the Meta-Analysis Declaration (Quorum) and consolidated standards of guidelines on declaration tests (consort) for randomized controlled trials was established for quantitative researchers in 1997 and 2001, respectively, but this was not for another decade of qualitative research lines was largely adopted. 

Several recommendations now exist for qualified research with most compiled using similar methods. Many standards are created by the summary of journal directives, tiering of existing standards, and/or recommendations for identifying previous articles or manuals. 

The Equator Network, an international initiative aimed at improving transparency and reports in health research, refers to two main directives for the qualified research report - the consolidated criteria for the qualitative research declaration (Coreq) and the standards Declaration of qualitative research (SRQR). We will focus on Coreq and Srqr for the purpose of this column and this audience, although it is important to note that it is not an exhaustive list of qualitative reports.

The two tools are recommended for use during the submission process even when they are not expressly necessary. The use of Coreq or SRQR to identify the opportunities for biases or poor communication allows researchers to identify gaps before the evaluation. Even earlier, the two tools have merit during the research proposal process, the use of control lists to guide initial research design decisions can improve the transparency and quality of the final research product. 

Coreq recognizes the gap in the standards of the relationship between quantitative and qualitative, Tong, Sainsbury, and Craig's (2007) research has created a most important element control list when declaring the results of interviews and discussion groups. Known as Coreq, it was compiled from a set of 22 existing evaluation guidelines for quantitative research and divided into three areas: research team, study design, analysis, and results. 

Although Coreq was designed by public health researchers, it has become a popular directive beyond health care with a number of journals requiring a core control list submission. This 32 -element control list asks researchers to identify the aspects of submission of the research team, design, or analysis that may indicate biases (or more likely, poor communication concerning decisions of research). 

See the supplies equipment for an example of the Coreq control list as used by a researcher at BMJ Open (Lotto, Smith, and Armstrong, 2017). SRQR SRQR differs from Coreq both in its construction and its application. While Coreq is intended for interviews and discussion groups (although part of the frame extends to other qualitative methods), SRQR is an improved tool for a wider range of qualitative studies (O'Brien, Harris, Beckman, Reed, and Cook, 2014)

Qualitative studies challenges can be classified in severe traditions, including narrative research, phrenology, founded theory, ethnographic studies, and case studies (Creswell, 2012). With such an extent of principles and methods within each type of survey, a "one-sized" reporting standard can be restrictive. 

What can be a notable characteristic in a strictly narrative study can be less relevant in an ethnographic study, for example. Coreq was criticized for this reaction because it has an orientation towards the founded thesis which can make research from other inadequate approaches. For example, Coreq emphasizes coding and development of the theme with less concern for contextualization (Buus and Agdal, 2013).

Other challenges arise when considering the broader epistemological controversies in qualitative research. Although the merit of these arguments could be extended in a future article, there is still a divergence among researchers regarding the importance of validity, reliability, and generalization in qualitative research (Cohen and Crabtree, 2008; Mays and Pope, 2000). 

While these are the distinctive stamps of quantitative research (and are reflected in reporting systems, as such), it is difficult to establish report recommendations for qualitative research when the epistemological basis for quality research is still debatable.

However, within a specific discipline, it can be appropriate (and even valuable) to apply a set of recommendations to guarantee quality research and help evaluators. Since the majority of the standards are made up of criteria of the existing literature or the guidelines of the magazine, it would be possible to examine the most used research methods and the results of greater impact to adapt the reports of reports. 

As the design of research and environmental psychology are still in their relative childhood, a set of "personalized" report recommendations would improve both the quality of research design, the ability of reviewers to evaluate presentations, and the cohesion of the discipline as a whole. 

Qualitative research experts have supported the notion of specific adaptive criteria for the purpose that allow different epistemological approaches to a certain topic (Hannes, Heyvaert, Slegers, Van-Denbrande, and Van Nuland, 2015).

It could be said that report standards are more imperative in fields that combine multiple discipline methods and encourage applied research that can be less rigorous. Instead of being restrictive, a set of well-informed criteria could provide guidance for new researchers interested in qualitative work while ensuring that professionals may have confidence in their interpretation of research results. 

However, editors and reviewers must be careful to see a Coreq or SRQR (or other) combined verification list not as confirmation of high-quality work, but as a useful tool to identify weaknesses within a presentation.

Conclusion

Although there are multiple sets of recommendations for qualitative researchers, there is an even greater number of principles and practices that exceed qualitative research. Require that all researchers adhere to a standard that is restrictive for such an expansive field. In health design research, Coreq and SRQR provide a valuable verification list for researchers to ensure that their decisions will communicate effectively and for evaluators to identify poorly supported decisions.

Download

References

Peditto, K. (2018). Reporting qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and implications for health design. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal11(2), 16-19.

Berlangganan update artikel terbaru via email:

0 Response to "Standards, Challenges, And Implications For Health Design Qualitative Research"

Post a Comment

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel