Qualitative Study in Healthcare: Literature Analysis

Subject: Healthcare Research
Pages: 27
Words: 7288
Reading time:
26 min


This essay aims to critic nine samples of articles on qualitative studies related to healthcare. The major sections that the essay will address include the sampling procedures, general criteria for data collection, the descriptive statistics implemented, and inferential techniques used.

Health Informatics Opportunities and Challenges: Preliminary Study in the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf

Sampling Procedure

The qualitative research conducted (as mentioned in this article) indicated that countries in the Gulf region have both opportunities and challenges in the development of health informatics in the Gulf Cooperative Council (GCC). Out of these countries, three participants with relevant information on health informatics initiatives were selected for inclusion in the study (Alkraiji, Osama, & Fawzi, 2014). Although a specific sampling method was not described, a non-probability selection procedure was implemented as the layout was described. Purposive sampling is relevant to what the researcher requires; hence, the criteria for the sample selection are identified for use (Alkraiji et al., 2014).

Various sampling criteria used to select participants included Ph.D. holders in health informatics. The choice of the participants was guided by their expertise in research in the field of health informatics. Lastly, the participant must have led one national health informatics initiative in the county presented in the report. The sampling method implemented in the study is appropriate since the researcher is interested in producing a controlled result. As a result, the respondents were selected based on carefully selected criteria (Alkraiji et al., 2014).

The result provided information relevant to the researcher because of the purposive nature of the sampling technique used. Indeed, the practice was appropriate since only the information required by the researcher was determined (Alkraiji et al., 2014). Demographic characteristics are absent; inadequate sample size that is does not represent the population. This situation is evidenced by the inclusion of only three participants in the GCC countries (Alkraiji et al., 2014).

Bias is also identified especially when the researcher used a non-probability sampling method that is further purposive. Most of the participants were excluded from the population due to criteria used for selection that leads to the omission of some samples (Alkraiji et al., 2014). Lastly, the researcher did not indicate whether there was a dropout of participants in the study process.

Data-Collection Procedures

Minimal information is provided indicating the procedures of data collection used. The researcher collected the data alone through interviews conducted with three participants who represented three countries that were included in the study. The data that were collected were those relevant to the researcher to generate various themes (Alkraiji et al., 2014) conducted the health informatics and a prior brainstorming session.

The interviews conducted included various questions that were posed to participants concerning health informatics in the GCC. The variables were measured through reviewing of data in several times to ensure validity and reliability as well as for the development of possible themes. Even though these activities were conducted, there was no description of data collection instrument. Furthermore, there is no information about the pilot study in the conducted research (Alkraiji et al., 2014).

Data-Collection Methods General Criteria

Although the article indicated in the abstract that an interview was conducted in data collection, there was no thorough description of such methodology within the article. The questions proposed in the interviews as indicated in the methods section of the article provided answers to the questions that were further used to develop various themes on health informatics. This situation was also revealed where the respondents were provided with feedbacks to enable the proper formulation of more themes on the topic (Alkraiji et al., 2014).

Brainstorming was also used. In this case, the researchers administered various interview questions to the respondents following an interview schedule during the study process. Therefore, the study was limited to two methods; hence, only little information was gathered as compared to cases where different instruments were used to collect data. Furthermore, the length of interview session and details of the participants training the interview were omitted. Information on ethical issues and confidentiality was also missing in the article (Alkraiji et al., 2014).

Descriptive Statistics

A thematic approach was implemented in data analysis process. The authors frequently reviewed the data presented with a view of ensuring reliability and validity. There was no information on descriptive statistics in the report thus the level of measurement of the variables were not indicated. Information on measures such as those of central tendency, demographic information as well as figures and tables were also omitted (Alkraiji et al., 2014).

Inferential Statistics

There was missing information concerning inferential statistics. Information on both parametric and non-parametric tests, calculated figures, and various results of the study was not indicated. Besides, Information concerning the results was only available in the discussion section and majority of it was highlighted as either challenges or key health opportunities in the GCC countries. These results were identified as preliminaries for further research to be conducted on the same topic (Alkraiji et al., 2014).

A Qualitative Study of Integrated Care from the Perspectives of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and their Relatives

Sampling Procedure

The study was conducted in the City of Copenhagen in Denmark where patients with severe or very severe COPD (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) < 50percentage of predicted) were identified in the entire population of the city (Wodskou, Høst, Godtfredsen, & Frølich, 2014). The sample included 42 people who were grouped into distinctive characteristics. Some of the groups attended pulmonary rehabilitation in the municipality and hospitals. Others did not attend the pulmonary rehabilitation. The rest included relatives and those who were recently discharged due to the acute exacerbation of COPD (Wodskou et al., 2014).

A separate pilot group was also included in the study. Although a sampling technique was not mentioned, a non-probability, purposive sampling method was implemented (Wodskou et al., 2014). Various criteria were used to include and/or exclude participants from the study. The sampling technique was applied to the screening of the clinical records of the patients in the health facility. Those who met the outlined criteria were informed through phone calls to be included in the study. Therefore, this method is appropriate for the study since it involves the participants with the required traits only (Wodskou et al., 2014). Furthermore, the study describes the demographic characteristics of the subjects in terms of age and gender among others. There is also some relevancy in the adequacy of the sample size used for the study, as the subjects were 42 forming the total number of individual categories (Wodskou et al., 2014). This value is a good representation of the population examined within the City of Copenhagen.

Although a non-probability sampling technique was used in the selection of the sample, a critical criterion was employed for both the inclusion and exclusion of the respondents. The sampling criteria only experienced minimal biases, especially in age group categories or other aspects (Wodskou et al., 2014).

Lastly, the report has indicated information on subject drop out during subject selection. The study was conducted based on various criteria to ensure that the participants who failed to meet it were excluded (Wodskou et al., 2014). It is indicated that twenty participants who were called for the study declined to be included in the study. Seven other patients also declined on behalf of their relatives while one relative declined. Other eight participants also declined due to illnesses; hence, 34 patients and 8 relatives agreed to participate in the study (Wodskou et al., 2014).

Data-Collection Procedures

The researcher at the Bispebjerg University Hospital in the Capital Region of Denmark collected the data. The COPD disease management program had been conducted in this area for several years before the accomplishment of the actual study. Focus groups and individual interview schedules with the COPD patients and their relatives were used to collect data (Wodskou et al., 2014). A pilot interview was conducted to nine focus group as well as five individual interviews to ensure appropriate measurement of the reliability of the instrument used. There was no clear evidence to indicate the specific type of dependability and validity of the instruments used. The description of both the semi-structured interview and interview guides was done in details based on the research questions and recommendations made by the previous researchers (Wodskou et al., 2014).

Data-Collection Methods General Criteria

Thorough data collection was conducted as indicated in the research report whereby both semi-structured interviews were conducted to focus group. These were done in regards to the prior developed research questions and objectives. These two methods were deemed appropriate to the research questions even though a self-report method was not included (Wodskou et al., 2014).

The interview process conducted lasted between 90 and 120 minutes with an interval break of a 10-minute break was provided. Although such interviews were essential, the report does not indicate a training session intended to the interviewers before the study. It thus assumed that the researcher did not employ some assistants. Matters concerning ethics were spelled out in the report whereby written consents and confidential were given to the researcher. Approval to conduct such research was also done by the Danish Data Protection Agency (Wodskou et al., 2014).

Descriptive Statistics

The qualitative data analysis software NVivo 10 with a focus on the analysis of data as indicated in the report of the research on content data. Various types of descriptive statistics used in the study are measures of central tendencies such as median for instance age of the patients, FEV1 of percentages predicted (Wodskou et al., 2014)

This type of statistics is relevant since demographic information is best indicated using measures of central tendencies as indicated in Table 1 and 2 of the report. Such information indeed conforms to those in the text. Lastly, the report of the research does not provide information regarding inferential statistics (Wodskou et al., 2014).

Why is it difficult to implement e-health initiative? A Qualitative Study

Sampling Procedure

The report presented a case study methodology that discussed various contexts of healthcare such as primary, secondary, community care, e-health programs and the extent of normalization of e-health in such contexts. The population as elaborated in the report of the research is the nurses and healthcare practitioners who are well conversant with e-health system implementation (Murray et al., 2011). The selection of the samples was done in national, regional, and local levels. It included various staff from the health services centers, chief executives, clinical directors, senior health managers, ICT staff, health professionals, local NHS leaders, and working for private companies in the health facilities (Murray et al., 2011).

The samples therefore composed of 23 participants of which ten were from CS1, five from CS2 and eight from CS3 (Murray et al., 2011). The sampling frame thus covered regional leads for the cluster (CS2), local service providers (CS1), and chief executives from the health board trust for the whole three cases studies. All the target population was accessible (Murray et al., 2011).

A purposive non-probability sample method was implemented to ensure the inclusion of senior department of health staff who are responsible for e-health projects across different organizations among others (Murray et al., 2011). This sampling method was mentioned, and the method of recruitment in each study was highlighted. Therefore, it was appropriate for the study (Murray et al., 2011). Although the samples were selected adequately to represent the population being studied, there was a clear demonstration of their demographic characteristics (Murray et al., 2011). It was also revealed that there existed minor biases since a non-probability sampling technique was used. The selection of the samples only factored the participants with experience on e-health projects (Murray et al., 2011).

Data-Collection Procedures

The researchers alone in the healthcare contexts included primary, secondary, collected data, and community-based care concerning the nature of e-health technology as summarized in Table 1 of the report of the study. The data collection process was conducted between 2007 and 2008 (Murray et al., 2011).

The CS1 was conducted in a hospital trust that served the metropolitan areas of England and the Lead Primary Care Trust that provided referrals to that hospital (Murray et al., 2011). The CS2 was conducted in different hospitals at different sites in the rural areas of England. Lastly, the CS3 was conducted in an urban area in Scotland (Murray et al., 2011).

All the data were collected using semi-structured interview schedules to determine both what happened and explanation of participants on the e-health implementation and their assessment of the normality of e-health implementation (Murray et al., 2011).

The report has not indicated an appropriate level of measurement used to measure various variables. However, it clearly stated the data collection instrument that was used with a little description of how it was used to collect data (Murray et al., 2011). This instrument was implemented due to its previous usage by the researcher and recommendation by other researchers although its reliability and validity tests were not indicated in the report as should have been under normal cases (Murray et al., 2011). Lastly, the researchers failed to mention whether they conducted a pilot study (Murray et al., 2011).

Data-Collection Methods General Criteria

A minimal description of how data was collected has been indicated using only interview that was also not appropriate to address the research questions. This situation is seen as a weakness in the accomplishment of the study (Murray et al., 2011). Conduction of more interviews was still insufficient to yield the required strength of the findings (Murray et al., 2011). The reliance on the interview data requires short of interpretations of some activities thus inclusion of observation would be more appropriate. Therefore, the compilation of the report should have been underpinned by both observation and interview techniques (Murray et al., 2011).

The data collection duration took almost a year between 2007 and 2008 though the actual time to be taken during each interview was not indicated (Murray et al., 2011). The researchers furthermore are silent on the aspect of training interviewers before the actual interview process (Murray et al., 2011). However, the research took some considerations on ethical issues as indicated in the report of the research. The respondents were issued with 24 hours to consider whether they agree to be included in the study (Murray et al., 2011).

Descriptive Statistics

The analysis of data as indicated in the research report omitted to mention any detail concerning descriptive statistics as well as those of the inferential data (Murray et al., 2011). The analysis implemented was a framework method through the Normalization Process Model. The presentation of data as well as elaborated within the text for each case study numbers as indicated in Table 3 in the research report (Murray et al., 2011).

Understanding Hospital-Based Nurses’ Experiences of Structurational Divergence

Sampling Procedure

The report has discussed an examination of experiences of nurses on Structurational divergences that are based in the hospital setups (Anderson, 2015). The study conducted included a range of hospital departments with about 3 to 50 nurses in numbers (Anderson, 2015). A semi-structured narrative approach was selected as a data collection tool (Anderson, 2015). From the selected population, a representative sample of 10 subjects who were hospital-based nurses was to be chosen from various regions in the mid-Atlantic (Anderson, 2015). Other participants were also included from other regions through phone calls based on the research team’s social and professional networks. Both virtual and physical techniques were used to identify the samples. Furthermore, the samples consisted of 9 females and 1 male (Anderson, 2015). The participants’ ages were to fall between 25 to 60 years with an average age of 44. Lastly, the participants were only to be of white origin (Anderson, 2015). The research in the study chose to use a snowball method of non-probability sampling of which was indicated in the research report (Anderson, 2015).

The recruitment involved various methods such as email, phone calls, face-to-face contact and listings on social networking websites (Anderson, 2015). This sampling method was inappropriate since it only included a single race thus nurses from other races who might possess information regarding the topic of the study were excluded. Furthermore, the sample is not a representation of the entire nurse diverse workforce since it represented white nurses with only one male nurse (Anderson, 2015).

There are potential biases in the recruitment of samples due to the technique used for the inclusion of samples. There was an inclusion of several departments in a hospital setup (Anderson, 2015). The results provided therefore cannot be easily used to link a given pattern to those of the demands in a given specialty. An issue of the subject dropout was also not discussed in the report (Anderson, 2015).

Data-Collection Procedures

The researcher collected data in hospital setup as well as through phone calls. This was conducted by use of semi-structured narrative interview schedule (Anderson, 2015). The data that were collected included demographic data especially the ages of the respondents as well as those that related to the experiences on Structurational divergence in the workplace (Anderson, 2015). Other data were related to probing questions to provide detailed information concerning such experiences (Anderson, 2015).

The interviews conducted were also audio-recorded at the same time. The report of the research has not indicated the appropriate measurement used for the research variables though a description of data collection instrument was indicated (Anderson, 2015). This description was also not done in details although a recommendation of the methodology has been borrowed from both Polskinghorme (1983) and Moustaks (1994). A test of both the reliability and validity of the instrument as well as a pilot study that was conducted have not been discussed (Anderson, 2015).

Data-Collection Methods General Criteria

Data collection methods were not discussed at a length and were not appropriate to be used to answer research questions. This situation was evident since the only interview schedules were used which were semi-structured. Therefore, it can be noted that the study did not benefit from the one method used (Anderson, 2015). To confirm such, there are various weaknesses highlighted in the research that support my argument. For example, the sample used is not a representation of the population; it is a representation of various departments in the hospital (Anderson, 2015). Therefore, the results cannot be linked to a specific issue affecting a given specialty. Besides, the duration that the interview process was to take is not indicated as well as training of the interviewers as well as assurance of confidentiality (Anderson, 2015).

Descriptive Statistics

A descriptive statistics has been highlighted in the report with only measures of mean age of participants being mentioned as 44 years. Issues of levels of measurements of the variables were omitted in the study (Anderson, 2015). Even though the researcher strived to appreciate the importance of including demographic information in details concerning age, geographical location and sizes of the nursing department in the research, such demographic information were only mentioned without inclusion of either tables or graphs(Anderson, 2015). These variables were not analyzed further in the report since they were not part of the goal of the research (Anderson, 2015). The study was also not comparative to give details on the existing relationships between demographic data and the responses of the respondents (Anderson, 2015).

Inferential Statistics

The analysis of data as indicated in the report was rather phenomenological that majored only in the identification of three major themes of Structurational divergence and resulted in conflicts of interpersonal, intrapersonal, and organizational levels (Anderson, 2015). These themes included management overload, identification of negotiation boundaries, awareness, and substitution among others (Anderson, 2015).

Community-based primary health care for older adults: a qualitative study of the perceptions of clients, caregivers and health care providers

Sampling Procedure

The study implemented a qualitative consultation procedure that majored on focus group interviews and one individual interview with older CBPHC clients, primary healthcare providers and informal caregivers (Lafortune, Huson, Santi, & Stolee, 2015).

48 participants were selected for inclusion in the study to represent the population of both urban and rural areas of Ontario province, Canada. The target population in the study was identified as old people who are normally served poorly by various existing models of community-based primary health care (CBPHC) (Lafortune et al., 2015).

A stratified purposive sampling technique was implemented whereby participant placed into focus groups. These subjects were recruited through phone calls, e-mailing and using posters being displayed at community centers, libraries and retirement homes. This sampling technique is mentioned and the methodology of its usage elaborated (Lafortune et al., 2015).

The method of sampling is appropriate since it required eligible criteria for inclusion of participants. It is also essential in ensuring that participants are correctly grouped in their respective focus groups to ensure facilitation of various sessions (Lafortune et al., 2015).

In terms of the participants’ demographic information, the researcher indicated evidence concerning their gender, age, geographical locations, language spoken, and attitudes of the participants towards caregiving techniques and professions such as case managers, occupational therapists, physicians, registered dieticians, health promoters, social workers, physiotherapists, chiropodists, and nurse practitioners among others (Lafortune et al., 2015). The sample size used for the study is thus adequate since practitioners with such vast experiences are minimal in numbers within the area of specialty (Lafortune et al., 2015).

The sample though is a representation of the population of old people with being given care, it is not proportional since the majority (n =32) are from rural areas compared to the urban (n = 16) (Lafortune et al., 2015). This state of events led to the over-representation of the views the urban dwellers. To correct the biases that were anticipated in the interview processes, the healthcare providers, clients, and family caregivers used two separate guides. Both interviews were conducted separately to ensure homogeneity (Lafortune et al., 2015). Although there was no subject dropout, an incident of one individual interview was performed. This process was done so because the participant was not present at the time of conduction of focus groups as scheduled (Lafortune et al., 2015).

Data-Collection Procedures

The researcher collected data using semi-structured focus group interview guides and schedules. The survey involved seven focus groups. Other participants included four healthcare providers attending to three patients. Interviews were also conducted to informal caregivers (Lafortune et al., 2015).

The data collected included those relevant to the topic or formed themes such as barriers, facilitators, and recommended system improvements. These interviews and focus groups were repeatedly conducted until saturation took place amongst the members of the fifth focus group to ensure that the variables were measures appropriately (Lafortune et al., 2015). The data collection procedures and instruments were included in the study as recommended by Krueger and Casey (2000) since they were elaborative. Both the reliability and validity tests of the instruments were not indicated in the report although a pilot study was conducted (Lafortune et al., 2015).

Data-Collection Methods General Criteria

A thorough description of data collection method was conducted that involved use of focus groups and interviews. Such interviews were conducted in both urban and rural areas of Southwestern areas of Ontario. These interviews were audio recorded with the permission of the participants and transcribed verbatim that resulted to 7, 225 lines of text information (Lafortune et al., 2015).

The data collection methods used even though were appropriate for the study since they ensured that relevant information gathered answered various research questions, a combination of such with observational techniques would be more appropriate. The study would have therefore benefitted from many methods of data collection (Lafortune et al., 2015).

The interview processes conducted took time duration of between one to two hours. Though no information indicate that training was conducted to the interviewers, the presence of facilitator and a note-taker may guarantee that such activities took place (Lafortune et al., 2015).

Descriptive Statistics

There was no detailed descriptive statistics elaborated in the report of the research. Information about measures of central tendencies was never highlighted. Though major demographic information tabulated were genders, geographical locations of the respondents and the occupations, no clarity was given as to whether these respondents fall between a given age bracket (Lafortune et al., 2015). Lastly, the research did not indicate any inferential statistics since the analysis of data involved combinations of directed and emergent coding. This objective was realized using the NVivo 10 software that focused on theme patterns (Lafortune et al., 2015).

Challenges to the implementation of health sector decentralization in Tanzania: experiences from Kongwa district council

Sampling Procedure

The study was conducted in Kongwa district of Dodoma region in Tanzania where decentralization of healthcare system is being conducted (Frumence, Nyamhanga, Mwangu, & Hurtig, 2013). The population being investigated is 309, 977 people in the district. These people are being served with a district health hospital, three health centre and 27 dispensaries. 17 participants selected from the national level were selected to participate in the research. 10 others were selected from the district level (Frumence et al., 2013).

The participants of the study were chosen purposively from the key policy makers and planners at both the national and district levels. A description of the sampling process was also indicated whereby seven senior management who are directly involved in the implementation of decentralization policy in the health sector were chosen (Frumence et al., 2013). These were respondents from the MoHSW, PMO-RALG and Ministry of Finance (MoF). At the district level, the 10 respondents chosen were the key informants who are directly involved in both supervision and implementation of the decentralization of health service programs at the district level (Frumence et al., 2013).

Therefore, the sampling method is inappropriate since limited samples were used to collect data at the district level. The report of the research furthermore does not provide information on the demographic characteristics of the samples as normally required. Therefore, the report is relevant to the delimitation of the study that did not major on comparative analysis (Frumence et al., 2013).

The sample size used is also inadequate and is not a representation of the population since the participants required with relevant skills on decentralization of healthcare services were minimal (n = 17) compared to the population presented in the district (309, 977 people) (Frumence et al., 2013). Although biases existed in the representation of samples since only seven were from national level against 10 from the district level, they were not indicated. Biases can also exist since measures government such when non-probability sampling technique is used is not elaborated (Frumence et al., 2013). Lastly, no information is provided regarding the subject dropout during the study.

Data-Collection Procedures

The researcher who conducted interviews at the district level between October and December 2011 and the national level between January and June 2012 collected data. The data were collected at the Dodoma city and Kongwa District of Tanzania by use of interview schedules and guides (Frumence et al., 2013). The measurement level of the interview schedule was not indicated to measure the variables that existed in the research. A discussion of the interview schedule used was relatively discussed. The researcher furthermore has indicated that such were done in offices or at the seminar rooms as identified by the respondents, being interviewed (Frumence et al., 2013).

The two interviewers involved in the research were required to take notes in the process. The research never indicated whether the instrument was previously used or whether it was recommended by another researcher to be used in the study. There was also missing information concerning a test of both validity and reliability of the used interview schedule. The report of the research furthermore does not provide information about a pilot study conducted before the actual research was conducted (Frumence et al., 2013).

Data-Collection Methods General Criteria

Although the data collection method was not elaborated, the report of the research indicated that an interview guide was used in the process of gathering the required information. This strategy was organized to provide various themes to guide the process of the interviews (Frumence et al., 2013). The interview schedule as a data collection method was modified in a way that it answered the questions of the research.

The report of the research indicates that interviewing session took about 60 to 90 minutes. The interviewers ensured that the interview schedule was developed in Kiswahili language to minimize situations of language barriers (Frumence et al., 2013). Though interviewers were mentioned in the report to be two in each of the interviewing sessions, information on the prior training of the interviewers was not indicated (Frumence et al., 2013).

Ethical considerations regarding confidentiality protocol were assured as indicated in the report. The interviewees gave oral informed consents before participating in the research. The interviews were also recorded in notebooks with the permission granted by the interviewees. Furthermore, the results were kept confidential (Frumence et al., 2013).

Descriptive Statistics

The research conducted as indicated in the report followed a thematic analytical approach. The approach derived various themes that can be used to describe the issue in question (Frumence et al., 2013). Therefore, the study did not dwell on descriptive statistics. Information on the inferential statistics was not reported in the research report since the goal of the research was only for the thematic approach to addressing phenomenon being investigated (Frumence et al., 2013).

Motivation and Job Satisfaction among Medical and Nursing Staff in a Cyprus Public General Hospital

Sampling Procedure

The study was conducted in the Nicosia General Hospital in Cyprus using a previously developed and valid instrument. The samples were categorized into care professionals, medical doctors, dentists, and nurses. This situation led to 286 samples that include 67 doctors and 219 nurses (Lambrou, Kontodimopoulos, & Niakas, 2010).

The researcher implemented a randomized sampling technique in the study when selecting the samples for inclusion in the study. This methods was identified in the report where the researcher mentioned the randomized distribution of questionnaires (Lambrou et al., 2010). The sampling method was appropriate for the study since it was unbiased even though the numbers of doctors were moderately lower as compared to the nurses (Lambrou et al., 2010).

The report also indicated demographic characteristics of the participants that included age, education, data related to work and profession such as the years of service, management positions, and departments among others. The sample size was adequate and represented the population of the hospital. The implementation of the probability sampling technique avoided any existence of biases in the study. However, this fact is not indicated in the research report (Lambrou et al., 2010).

Data-Collection Procedures

The report indicated that the collection of data was accomplished between November and December 2008 in the Nicosia General Hospital. The facility had a bed capacity of 414 with 161 doctors and 770 nurses (Lambrou et al., 2010).

Questionnaires were used in data collections of which were randomly distributed to the respondents and were elaborated though this was not detailed. The data that were collected were related to issues of motivation factors towards healthcare practitioners in the hospital setup (Lambrou et al., 2010). Multivariate measurements were conducted to dependent and independent variables. The questionnaire used was previously developed and validated to ensure no biases and for accuracy (Lambrou et al., 2010).

A measure of internal consistency for reliability were done through the four scale measurements on remuneration, achievement 0.838 (0.822), 0.744 (0.782), co-workers 0.847 (0.826) and attributes 0.897 (0.901) (Lambrou et al., 2010). All these indicated high internal consistency reliability and Cronbach’s alpha (0.838) coefficient with values developed. The conduction of the validity test and a pilot study were not indicated in the research report (Lambrou et al., 2010).

Data-Collection Methods General Criteria

Data collection methods were not described in details except for the questionnaire being mentioned to be randomly distributed to 50 percent of the doctors including dentists and nurses. The departments were grouped into four sectors to enhance ease of distribution of The methods of data collection used were therefore appropriate to test various research hypotheses and questions used questionnaires (Lambrou et al., 2010).

Although the questionnaire instrument was used in the study, several research instruments were seen as appropriate to give more relevant information on the study topic. The questionnaire used for the study consisted of 19 items that were grouped into four factors of motivation that included job attributes, remuneration, co-workers, and achievement (Lambrou et al., 2010). The questionnaires were distributed between November and December in 2008. The response was rated at 76.6% (Lambrou et al., 2010). The report however, did not highlight information regarding time duration to complete the questionnaire successfully while avoiding bias. Lastly, the confidentiality or anonymity of the respondents was not indicated in the questionnaires (Lambrou et al., 2010).

Descriptive Statistics

The report has indicated various descriptive statistics on demographic data of the respondents. Although measures of central tendencies were omitted in the report, the descriptive statistics were elaborative on age distribution, gender, education, years of services, managerial positions, and departments among other characteristics (Lambrou et al., 2010). The measure of variability was not indicated though the researched highlighted that the instrument was valid. Clear information regarding demographic characteristics of the respondents was therefore indicated. All these information tabulated reflected and conformed to those in the text and thus they agreed questionnaires (Lambrou et al., 2010).

Inferential Statistics

Most of the data presented in the study were analyzed using inferential statistics and more information that is relevant was provided concerning various parametric and non-parametric tests. The figures provided included calculated values with degrees of freedom and various significant levels questionnaires (Lambrou et al., 2010).

The tests indicated in the report of the research include parametric t-tests, the analysis of variance ANOVA were used to compare gender, education, age as well as job related variables. Various tests chosen were therefore appropriate and consistent with the level of measurement of the variables, the groups that were tested and to the size of the sample. The entire inferential statistic was tested following the study topic and discussions thoroughly executed. The researchers analyzed the results in text and tabulated them in the report questionnaires (Lambrou et al., 2010).

An analytical study of patients’ health problems in public hospitals of Kyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

Sampling Procedure

The research was conducted in central Saidu Sharif public hospital of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008). 150 respondents were included for the study especially patients who were randomly selected (Naz, Khan, Daraz, Hussain, & Khan, 2012). A probability sampling technique was used during the survey with a total population of 2000 of which there exist 165 doctors, 240 nurses, and 180 paramedics (Naz et al., 2012).

The selection of the 150 participants was based on simple random sampling procedures. A controlled interview plan served as convenient data collection instrument. Although this sampling method was highlighted, it was not elaborated further to provide clarity on the results of the study (Naz et al., 2012).

Nonetheless, the sampling method was appropriate since it was free from biases and could be used to get more information due to its nature. The only information concerning demographic characteristics of the respondents is their occupation whether the respondent is a patient, a doctor or a nurse. The sample size that is 150 is adequate is a representation of the population of 2000 that is presented in the study (Naz et al., 2012). Biases that occurred in the study were not mentioned in the research report. Since probability sampling technique was implemented, a likelihood of biases would be minimal. Other issues related to subject dropout were not indicated in the report. As a result, it was assumed that there were zero dropouts at time of the study (Naz et al., 2012).

Data-Collection Procedures

The information on the person who collected the data is missing. In this case, it is assumed that the researcher collected the data. This research was a comprehensive survey conducted at the Central Saidu Sharif public Hospital Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan (Naz et al., 2012). The data collected included those related to existing facilities and problems of patients, the perception of patients towards public hospitals and health related issues. The appropriate level of measurement used for the research variables included the Chi-square and correlation methods (Naz et al., 2012).

The report of the research only highlighted the use of interview schedule without further explanation of how such instrument were used. Furthermore, it has failed to identify whether the instrument was tested or used previously before being implemented in the current research study (Naz et al., 2012). The report thus could not verify whether the instrument was reliable or valid. Besides, the information on the accomplishment of a pilot study is also omitted in the report. Since the researcher who wrote the report omitted such sections, it was inappropriate to assume that a pilot study was conducted before the current research (Naz et al., 2012).

Data-Collection Methods General Criteria

The report has only provided limited description of data collection methods. The main tool that was used in the survey was the interview schedule. This research instrument was inappropriate to test all the given hypotheses. Such instruments are required to be used with other tools such as observations (Naz et al., 2012). Therefore, this study should have been beneficial if more inquiry tools were used. The report of the research did not present issues on time duration in conducting interviews, training of the interviewers, and assurance of the confidentiality (Naz et al., 2012).

Descriptive Statistics

The report has minimally highlighted descriptive statistics especially on the occupation of the respondents who represented the characteristics of the subjects. Other data presented in the form of tables including percentages of doctor-population rations, doctor-nurse, and nurse-populations (Naz et al., 2012). These kinds of the statistics were inappropriate to the level of measurement of various variables; hence, measures of central tendencies were omitted. Such data on descriptive statistics were presented in neither tables nor graphs (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008).

Inferential Statistics

The report of the research has thoroughly discussed various inferential statistics used that include chi-square tests and correlation analyzes to ensure that examination of various associations and relationships that exist between the dependent and independent variables were conducted. Since the study only used chi-square tests and correlations, they provided only required information regarding the proposed hypotheses in the study report (Naz et al., 2012). Information on the calculated values, degrees of freedom, and the levels of significance were presented in the study report. The only non-parametric tests conducted in the study report are the chi-square tests that examined the existing associations between various variables thus were appropriate to measure the levels of variables (Naz et al., 2012). More information was presented in the form of bar graphs indicating percentages of perceptions of patients on facilities and their availabilities in the hospital facility. The results of the inferential statistics were then discussed clearly and in details. These data were presented in both tables and graphs. The presented results conformed to those in the text (Naz et al., 2012).

A Survey of the Impact of Disruptive Behaviors and Communication Defects on Patient Safety

Sampling Procedure

This survey was conducted in the United States by the VHA West Coast hospitals with a view of assessing various disruptive behaviors that were exhibited in the hospitals, especially among nurses and physicians. It also focused on the effects of such behaviors on aspects such as communication, collaboration, and disruptions to the patients (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008). The population of the hospital was 388 member hospitals of which 102 were included for the study (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008). From the 102 hospitals, 4, 530 participants were included for the study. The respondents were categorized as nurses (2,846), physicians (944), administrative executives (40), and others (700) (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008).

A probability sampling technique was used in the research with a questionnaire used as the tool in conduction of the survey. This information though was not indicated clearly in the research report. Although the sampling method used in the survey was not mentioned a variety of question were presented to the respondents in the survey process based on the issues and experiences noted by VHA member hospitals leaders and nurses (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008). Since the study was a survey, the sampling method was appropriate since it required a probability sampling technique (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008). The demographic characteristics of samples presented are only the titles or occupations of the respondent’s other information concerning age as well as gender were not indicated. The sample size was 4, 530 people which is a representation of the population being studied. The researcher in the report never indicated whether there was a likely potential of biases or dropouts identified during the study process (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008).

Data-Collection Procedures

A shallow discussion of data collection procedure is evident in the research report with the researcher as the person who conducted the study between the years 2004 and 2007. The information collected was linked to the disruptive behaviors amongst the health professionals operating in the healthcare facilities. All these data were gathered by use of questionnaires during the entire study period (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008). The levels of measurement of variables were highlighted in the study since the survey was based on various issues and experiences that were considered as variables (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008). The survey was distributed, reviewed, and tested internally by the subgroups of physicians and nurses from various VHA hospitals. They were then field-tested in the Mayo Clinic Hospital in Scottsdale, Arizona and Barnes-Jewish-Christian Hospitals in St. Louis (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008).

The report only indicated that the assessment of the data collection instrument did not elaborate its previous use. However, the instrument had been previously tested and recommendations made through a pilot study that was conducted (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008). As shown in the report, selected groups of respondents comprising physicians and nurses verified the study results. The format of the survey was corrected to include responses of “yes” or “no” questions. Other information that was clarified included numerical grades that were to be answered using a 10-point Likert scale besides comments from individual respondents (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008).

Data-Collection Methods General Criteria

It can be noted from the study report that data collection methods were not described into details though these methods were appropriate to answer the questions asked in the survey (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008). The survey used in the study had 22 questions that were based on issues and experiences noted by the nursing and physician leader who are members of the VHA hospitals (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008). Even though the response rate was given at 26%, other information concerning the length of the survey and the duration it would take a respondent to complete one were not indicated (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008). The report discussed neither the biases nor the anonymity and confidentiality assurance in the survey process (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008).

Descriptive Statistics

Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics of which only minimal information was presented in percentages and graphs (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008). The descriptive statistics used were limited and appropriate for only the level of measurements of the variables presented in the study (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008). This situation led to the insufficient analysis of the data even though it was well presented in the report. The measures of central tendencies were not indicated. Besides variability measures were also omitted. It can be noted from the study that only titles and job occupations were the demographic data of the respondents highlighted against their perceptions on the disruptive behaviors and other variables (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008). The information was presented in text and graphs. Lastly, there was no analysis of the inferential statistics since no parametric and non-parametric tests were conducted.

Reference List

Alkraiji, A., Osama, E., & Fawzi, A. (2014). Health Informatics Opportunities and Challenges: Preliminary Study in the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf. Journal of Health Informatics in Developing Countries, 8(1), 36-45.

Anderson, L. (2015). Understanding Hospital-Based Nurses’ Experiences of Structurational Divergence. The Qualitative Report, 20(3), 172-185.

Frumence, G., Nyamhanga, T., Mwangu, M., & Hurtig, A. (2013). Challenges to the implementation of health sector decentralization in Tanzania: experiences from Kongwa district council. Global health action, 6.

Lafortune, C., Huson, K., Santi, S., & Stolee, P. (2015). Community-based primary health care for older adults: a qualitative study of the perceptions of clients, caregivers and health care providers. BMC geriatrics, 15(1), 57.

Lambrou, P., Kontodimopoulos, N., & Niakas, D. (2010). Motivation and job satisfaction among medical and nursing staff in a Cyprus public general hospital. Hum Resour Health, 8, 26.

Murray, E., Burns, J., May, C., Finch, T., O’Donnell, C., Wallace, P.,…Mair, F. (2011). Why is it difficult to implement e-health initiatives? A qualitative study. Implement Sci, 6(6), 5908-6.

Naz, A., Khan, W., Daraz, U., Hussain, M., & Khan, T. (2012). An Analytical Study of Patients’ Health Problems in Public Hospitals of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(5).

Rosenstein, A., & O’Daniel, M. (2008). A survey of the impact of disruptive behaviors and communication defects on patient safety. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 34(8), 464-471.

Wodskou, P., Høst, D., Godtfredsen, N., & Frølich, A. (2014). A qualitative study of integrated care from the perspectives of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and their relatives. BMC health services research, 14(1), 471.