Read and respond to the four colleagues in one or more of the following ways:
Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.
Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.
Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
Suggest an alternative perspective based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.
provide two references each response
USING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS TO INFORM EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE
Evidence-based practice (EBP) involves incorporating the best available evidence from research, clinical expertise, and patient or client preferences to inform decision-making and improve outcomes in healthcare provision. As such, research methods including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method approaches, play a significant role in determining what strong evidence is and what is not to generate valuable knowledge that informs decision-making in the nursing practice (Lobiondo-Wood & Haber, 2022). Here, this study focuses on explaining when it might be most useful to use both qualitative and quantitative approaches and mixed methods to support a research design and whether a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches is used in systematic reviews to support evidence-based practice.
Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
According to Eisner (2021), the primary difference between quantitative and qualitative approaches is based on the type of data that they rely on to develop evidence; as such, quantitative approaches rely on numeric data that can be accurately and precisely measured while qualitative approaches rely on descriptive data that can be obtained from observation, interviews, and textual analysis. Thorne (2018) further notes that qualitative approaches are employed by nurses seeking to gain a deeper understanding of complex phenomena, explore individual experiences, or investigate contextual factors that influence outcomes (finding out how things happen). For instance, nurses may conduct a qualitative assessment by interviewing patients to gain insight into their experience and emotions on treatment and observe patient interactions with healthcare providers to understand contextual factors that impact patient outcomes.
On the other hand, Lobiondo-Wood and Haber (2022) depict that quantitative approaches provide empirical evidence obtained from predetermined systems of measurement and psychometrical tests to gain insight into what happens and why things happen. In contrast to qualitative approaches, nurses could conduct surveys with a large sample of patients to measure their satisfaction levels with different healthcare providers, whereby, using statistical methods, nurses can identify patterns and correlations between contextual factors and patient satisfaction levels. Nonetheless, both approaches provide evidence-based recommendations that focus on improving healthcare provider performance and patient experience.
The use of both qualitative and quantitative research methods in evidence-based practice (mixed method approach) opens up a higher realm of understanding medical cases as both approaches complement each other. Both Thompson and Ivankova (2022) and Lobiondo-Wood and Haber (2022) agree that a combination of qualitative and quantitative studies gives a holistic knowledge of a case study, considering that when quantitative methods give precise answers in answering a hypothesis, qualitative evidence improves the known knowledge to understand the contextual elements that contributed to the quantitative findings. For instance, in a case where patient satisfaction is tested, quantitative methods will give a numerical score that highlights the degree of satisfaction of patience; incorporating qualitative methods further assists in understanding why patients are unsatisfied and which event(s) are causing dissatisfaction as well as what other stressors are contributing to the dissatisfaction and what solution do patients prefer to alleviate the dissatisfaction.
Combination of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches in Systematic Reviews
The use of a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches in systematic reviews is possible as it enhances the depth and breadth of evidence to support evidence-based practice. The discussion method aligns with the principles of evidence-based practice by providing a more nuanced understanding of interventions, outcomes, and the complex contexts in which they operate, ultimately supporting more informed and contextually relevant decision-making in healthcare fields. (Noyes et al., 2019). For instance, in the case of a systematic review on the effectiveness of evidence-based interventions for reducing stress in healthcare professionals, the qualitative component assists in gaining insights into professionals’ experiences and perceptions of interventions, while the quantitative component assesses the overall effectiveness of interventions in reducing stress levels.
Throughout this study, it is evident that in as much as qualitative and quantitative approaches in evidence-based practice independently generate adequate evidence, a combination of both approaches in a case study complements each other to develop rich evidence with a holistic understanding and patient-centered approach to decision-making. Moreover, the integration of both methods provides a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, allowing nurses to triangulate findings and enhance the overall validity of their study in systematic evidence-based reviews. Future studies in the discipline ought to look into making the use of combined methods in evidence-based practice mandatory, considering their accuracy in addressing healthcare cases.
Using Qualitative and Quantitative Methods to Inform Evidence-Base Practice (EBP)
In recent years, telemedicine has gained popularity in delivering mental health services. Telemedicine is the process of teleportation where patients and doctors communicate via video calls or messages. This approach can break the barriers of distance, mobility, and stigma, characteristic of in-person treatment; nevertheless, analyzing its effectiveness performs a quality task. Several factors determine the success or failure rate in mental health telemedicine treatment (Hilty et al., 2013). It will also be necessary to prove equal performance and outcomes regarding telemedicine as well as conventional methods of treatment. Nevertheless, while the satisfaction of patients and being accessible to people is still a significant concern in this area, research approaches that go beyond yes-or-no answers are needed.
Combining qualitative and quantitative methods is necessary to tackle these difficulties. While quantitative data may be able to uncover telemedicine usage rates and symptom improvement outcomes, it often neglects the voices of patients coupled with their preferences as well as contextual factors that determine treatment efficiencies. Qualitative methods yield in-depth information and can produce some level of generalization. Using both quantitative and qualitative analysis, researchers will gain more precise insights into the mental health advantages of telemedicine. This essay will illustrate the benefits and weaknesses of qualitative research methods, quantitative ones, and a combination of them for mixed methodologies. It will also talk about how this method can be used to study telemedicine’s efficacy in mental health services for a better emphasis on evidence-based practice and enhanced mental healthcare provision.
The Issue in Healthcare
The issue of using telemedicine for mental health services has its fair share of challenges. Communication is one challenge because telemedicine sessions require an internet connection and gadgets such as cell phones, which are only in the possession of some people. This disparity in access may hinder the use of telehealth by rural and poor sects. Another challenge is maintaining patients’ data security in a telemedicine setting. Lack of accurate encryption and adequate security could lead to potential breaches in critical information, leading to an erosion of patient-provider confidence.
In addition, the efficacy of telemedicine in mind problems is indistinct. While specific studies suggest the matter to be challenging though reasonably sufficient, others draw attention to virtual therapeutic partnership difficulties and their impact (Hilty et al., 2013). There is a high reason to believe that telemedicine is destroying the building of trust and rapport between patients and therapists and may affect patient treatment success. Centering the deciphering of this intricacy on qualitative or quantitative research methods is limited. Qualitative studies such as interviews and focus groups create patient and provider opinions. They do not have generic properties that limit one’s ability to conclude the effectiveness of telemedicine in various populations.
However, quantitative tools, including surveys and outcome assessment metrics, offer a statistical outlook on the efficacy of treatment strategies aside from patient complacency. They also provide knowledge about the complexity of mental health care. However, at times, they may generalize and forget that there could be subjective experiences that create an essential impact on therapy efficacy.
Qualitative Research Methods and Designs
Qualitative methods identify in-depth information, like participant experiences, perceptions, and behavior research. Understanding the patient’s viewpoint, cultural values, and social surroundings is vital in running the treatment. The quantitative methodological approaches in qualitative research are interviews, focus groups, and document analysis. It is also possible to apply various qualitative research designs assessing the use of telemedicine in mental health treatment. Telemedicine mental health services are studied using the phenomenological approach as it provides a means to comprehend the underlying phenomenon.
The ethnographic approach to studying mental health telemedicine usage is based on its specific cultural background. In grounded theory research, participant data is utilized to conceptualize a theory. An action research Case study is a method used in the historical telehealth design of mental health; interactions occur between Participants and areas involved to improve care (Busetto et al., 2020). Qualitative research has limitations, but it offers valuable insights. The validity of quality data is controversial as it does not have universal correspondence, and researcher bias may influence the results. Qualitative studies may fail to demonstrate ways in which telemedicine affects the state of mental health.
Quantitative Research Methods and Designs
Quantitative research derives its methods from statistical techniques and measures through these tools to track healthcare statistics, such as mental health telemedicine efficacy. One of the quantitative research methods can be surveys, polls, and questionnaires. Various quantitative, non-experimental research designs are used to analyze telemedicine implementation systems that support mental health care. A comparison between an experimental and a correlational study is as follows: Empirical research uses controlled factors to determine how they influence mental health, while in the case of a correlational study, two or more variables are studied. Descriptive research designs portray the current status regarding a variable, while in the predictive analysis, recent data is used to anticipate what may happen in the future. Quantitative research still needs to be improved despite the statistical evidence. As typical in mental health telemedicine, quantitative data may not accurately capture the human elements of professionals with and without patient experience. When generalizing quantitative findings to a broader population, the sample size and selection must be included as they are integral in determining causality.
Mixed Methods Approach
Mixed methods research utilizes qualitative and quantitative data to understand a particular topic better. Employing a mixed-method approach in evaluating the effectiveness of mental health telemedicine allows for surmounting qualitative or quantitative research limitations. By combining both approaches, researchers may comprehensively understand the problem while advocating for evidence-based practice. A mixed methods study might include qualitative patient interviews about telemedicine and quantitative mental health results (Powell et al., 2022). Telemedicine mental health service effectiveness may be assessed by comparing, contrasting, or combining results from each approach. Mixed approaches may reveal qualitative and quantitative data differences, providing fresh insights. In order to substantiate this assertion, it is imperative to delve into the disparity between qualitative data, which indicates that patients are satisfied with telemedicine services, and quantitative data, which demonstrates a lack of significant mental health advantages.
Various methods are required to comprehend the mental health benefits of telemedicine. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, researchers may learn about patients’ experiences and perspectives and provide statistical evidence on telemedicine’s influence on mental health outcomes. A mixed methods approach generates information, identifies contradictions between qualitative and quantitative data, and promotes evidence-based mental health therapy. Implementing qualitative and quantitative evidence in healthcare is crucial. The mix of techniques helps researchers evaluate telemedicine in mental health care, improving patient outcomes. Telemedicine may alleviate COVID-19-related mental health difficulties, according to recent research. Therefore, a blended design may uncover mental health telemedicine best practices and facilitate improved care.
Quantitative and qualitative research are the two dominant research paradigms or methodologies used in the human and social sciences” (Spruce et al., 2017). Both of these types of research utilize modes of inquiry that use different methods to solve social phenomena. In quantitative research, or often referred to as traditional, positivist, experimental, or empiricist, reality is objective and independent of the researcher. Research is often unbiased and formal, which utilize two types of quantitative methodologies: experiment or survey. These studies are considered accurate, valid, and reliable. Quantitative research is deductive in nature, with a cause-effect approach. An example of a quantitative research approach is gathering data on how many of something there is, such as rates of central line-associated bloodstream infections there are in a certain setting.
Qualitative research began as a countermovement to the positivist paradigm. “To the qualitative researcher, reality is subjective and seen through the eyes of the participants of the study” (Spruce et al., 2017). The researcher focuses on interacting with subjects through the emerging design of the research project. Patterns and theories are developed throughout the research process and tend to be inductive by nature. Quantitative researchers generate numerical data to represent the social environment, while qualitative researchers generate verbal and pictorial data to represent the social environment. Although there are many differences between quantitative and qualitative research, they are both aimed at producing re-creatable data and finding links between variables. Therefore, there is no single best or better. It is all about the context and the situation in which it is used.
A mixed methods research approach is useful to understand complex experiences and to address the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative methodologies (large sample size, trends, generalizable) with those of qualitative methodologies (small sample size, details, in-depth). In the early stages of the research, qualitative research is useful when the researcher is not certain of the direction they want to go or focus on. This method allows the researcher the freedom to have their study develop more naturally (Doorenbos, 2018). And the researcher can obtain detailed information. A disadvantage of qualitative research is the researcher is deeply involved in the research process and they use a subjective view which can lead to them interpreting the data with a biased view thus skewing the information gathered. This research method can also be extremely time consuming.
Quantitative method allows the researcher to measure and analyze the information. The relationship between independent and dependent variables is studied in detail, which is useful in that it allows the researcher to be more objective in their findings and studies. It is useful in testing hypotheses in experiments since it measures data using statistics. A disadvantage of this method is that the context of the experiment or study is not taken into consideration, studies are not performed in a natural setting. Another disadvantage is that a large sample of the population must be studied; the larger the sample of people researched, the more statistically accurate the results will be.
When to Use Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches in Research Design
There are certain situations in which using both qualitative and quantitative approaches or mixed methods can be most useful in a research design. One possible scenario could be where researchers tackle complex research question that demands comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. Combination of qualitative and quantitative methods enables researchers to inquire about the width and depth of the research problem, thus providing a holistic understanding about the problem (Hall, 2020). Mixed methods help in validating or triangulating findings across different sources. Researchers can increase the validity and reliability of their findings by gathering data from various sources and employing different techniques (Rose & Johnson, 2020). This is particularly helpful when there is complexity around given study question accompanied with probable biases or constraints in each method used.
A researcher is examining the influence of a social intervention program on improving educational outcomes for marginalized young people. For instance, through surveys or standardized tests among others, the researcher can measure the effect of the program generally regarding test scores or graduation rates. But such a researcher also needs to know more about the experiences and views of these young people and their parents who are participants in this program. Through interviews or focus group discussions among other qualitative methods, the researcher can capture some individual stories and insights that may not be reflected in quantitative data.
Use of Mixed Methods in Systematic Reviews for Evidence-Based Practice
To inform evidence-based practice, systematic reviews synthesis relevant evidence. Systematic reviews normally involve quantitative studies, but they may also use qualitative or mixed methodologies to support their claims. In systematic reviews, using qualitative and quantitative methods can help answer diverse research questions and get a deeper understanding. Qualitative research can provide insights to an individual’s experience and opinion in to put into context and describe quantitative findings. By merging qualitative and quantitative data, systematic reviews enable better understanding (Camilli Trujillo et al., 2021). It enhances decision-making and aid in customizing therapy for clients. Moreover, use of qualitative or mixed method approaches in systematic reviews may help mitigate study biases and limitations. For instance, partial reporting of outcomes or incongruence in quantitative studies. Qualitative studies are effective tools in identifying these discrepancies and offering a more comprehensive outlook.