Researching Health

Researching Health

Introduction

Research in the healthcare sector is a systematic investigation with the goal of producing

credible evidence on key topics in the healthcare and medical sectors. The goal of Researching

Health is to serve as a comprehensive research guide for use by medical students, practitioners,

and academics. According to various publications and books published in the past ten years,

healthcare research frequently combines quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies

(Wasti et al., 2022).

Quantitative research aims to estimate future outcomes and establish reasons for existing

patterns (Khalid, Hilman and Kumar, 2012). It does this by employing a predetermined plan

predicated on hypotheses and theories, collecting and analyzing a large amount of data from a

statistical sample, and developing statistical methods for interpreting that data. The goals of

quantitative research in the healthcare sector may include determining the frequency with which

a particular condition occurs, the extent to which healthcare providers adopt and implement a

new intervention or the level of contentment experienced by service recipients.

Qualitative research seeks to comprehend social actors' viewpoints (Renjith et al., 2021).

It has an open and adaptable design. Its data will be collected intensively using a purposive

sample, and inductive analysis will be used to draw conclusions (Rolfe, Ramsden, Banner and

Graham, 2018). Qualitative studies can shed light on previously unknown information, such as

how staff members' attitudes and behaviours change in response to new treatments or how

service recipients feel about the services they get.

Mixed-methods research takes advantage of the best parts of qualitative and quantitative

research methods by incorporating them into a single study to get a deeper understanding of both

the big picture and the details (Wasti et al., 2022). Health researchers often combine quantitative

and qualitative methodologies in a single study, despite the prevalent belief that qualitative and

quantitative research are fundamentally separate concepts. Common qualitative, quantitative, and

mixed-methods approaches are examined for their applicability and feasibility in the setting of

health care.

Quantitative research

The quantitative research approach uses data, essentially measurements of values and

quantities, and is frequently characterized using statistical techniques (Apuke, 2017). These

methods can be analyzed statistically and repeated and recreated by the same researchers and

perhaps other researchers under comparable conditions. Research and evaluation in the field of

public health frequently employ quantitative approaches to ascertain the requirements of a

community or population, investigate relationships between numerous factors, and evaluate

variations in results between groups defined by demographics. Online surveys, interviews and

observations make up the vast majority of this quantitative study.

There is often a lack of complete data when scientists do quantitative studies (Khalid,

Hilman and Kumar, 2012). To arrive at their conclusions, they must first gather all of the

relevant data. Quantitative studies have aided in the enhancement of healthcare delivery, the

enhancement of healthcare management, and the advancement of healthcare knowledge

regarding diseases and other health difficulties (Moffatt, White, Mackintosh and Howel, 2006).

Researchers that use a quantitative approach to healthcare are lauded for their ability to boil
 4

down information into numerical form. Quantitative findings that have been subjected to

rigorous statistical analysis have a better chance of being accepted.

Through quantitative studies, healthcare providers, administrators, and policymakers

have all benefited from a deeper understanding of the diseases, treatments, and outcomes they

are responsible for delivering. For reliable results in quantitative studies, researchers must verify

that their data was collected from eligible participants and originates from reliable sources. This

has been recognized as the primary reason why quantitative studies may be trusted as credible

and objective. To determine whether data is appropriate to address a research issue, studies need

to be based on a sound theory of when further data is required (Kaiser, 2019).

This raises the question of why there are so many roadblocks to implementing

quantitative methods from biomedical research in clinical settings if this is indeed the case.

Quantitative data can be summarized with numbers, but qualitative inquiries concerning the

"why" and "how" of the data can't be answered with numbers (Khalid, Hilman and Kumar,

2012). Because quantitative findings in healthcare research cannot provide definitive answers to

these concerns, it follows that these statistics may be deceptive because they do not give the

whole picture.

To maximize a patient's quality and quantity of life, it is necessary to discover and

implement the interventions that can do so. The statistical approaches associated with

quantitative research are best adapted to doing just that. The main drawback of quantitative

studies is that their numerical results cannot be utilized to evaluate the worth of health treatment

on their own (Moffatt, White, Mackintosh and Howel, 2006). However, statistical results may

not always paint a whole picture of a study subject, and this is especially true in the medical
 5

field. Healthcare professionals, in contrast to those conducting traditional quantitative research

aimed at testing hypotheses, must develop methods for determining whether or not their ideas are

likely to lead to benefit patient outcomes.

When conducting research in the medical field, researchers must adhere to a set of core

ethical principles that allow them to be open and trustworthy at all times (Apuke, 2017). Ethical

norms cover topics including what kind of information can be collected from participants, how

long that information can be kept, who can access it, and who has an obligation to keep it

confidential. This norm emphasizes the safeguarding of participants' identities as well as

concerns regarding the prevention of stigmatization of specific populations or groups. It also

prioritizes safeguarding against the many forms of risk that are associated with taking part in

research projects.

Typically, questionnaires, interviews, and surveys are used to collect data for quantitative

studies (Kaiser, 2019). Operational definitions translate abstract notions into observable and

quantifiable metrics used in data collection. Hypotheses or predictions can be formally tested

using statistical analysis in both correlational and experimental studies by collecting and

analyzing various data, such as survey results, interview recordings, in-depth observations, and

sample data (Acri, 2012). You can get an overview of your data with descriptive statistics, which

will contain measures of averages and variability. Depending on the sampling technique

employed, the findings may be extrapolated to cover a larger sample of the population at large.

Privacy and anonymity protection are crucial to security (Sanjari et al., 2014). However,

a desire to utilize a particular design may contradict the practical execution of this standard. To

do this, it may be necessary to link data from different sources and conduct methodologically
 6

sound replications and tests of research findings (Khalid, Hilman and Kumar, 2012). For

instance, if a researcher collects data from participants through a questionnaire and later uses that

data to analyze the results of a different experiment involving the same individuals, linking the

two datasets would be a good step.

In research, dishonesty can occasionally take the form of fabricated results. Research

ethics are seriously compromised when deliberate fabrications are made. These will involve

proceeding with intent and a predetermined course of action. Thus, misleading results may

develop when the researcher's interest in a particular conclusion outweighs the interest in the

scientific facts that would naturally flow from an objective scientific examination. This raises

fundamental issues of external and internal validity of study findings, that is, validity issues from

a subjective standpoint.

Qualitative research

In qualitative research, non-numerical data are recorded, interpreted, and analyzed to

discover the more profound meanings underlying human experiences and behaviours (Bager-

Charleson, 2020). This type of study is conducted in place of quantitative research.

Understanding health behaviour patterns, describing real-world experiences, building behaviour

theories, investigating healthcare gaps, and creating solutions are all common uses for qualitative

research (Acri, 2012). Practitioners in the medical field, including doctors, nurses, laboratory

technologists, and academics, are responsible for this qualitative research. They get insight into

patients' and providers' perspectives and the reasons why promising healthcare therapies fail in

practice, thanks to qualitative research. They investigate and propose explanations for the

intricate interconnections between healthcare and the wider environment, including the political
 7

and social setting in which medical care is formulated, distributed, and paid for (Rolfe, Ramsden,

Banner and Graham, 2018).

Qualitative research, which has previously been underutilized in the field of healthcare

research, is increasingly being employed to investigate the social and cultural aspects of the

healthcare system (Bager-Charleson, 2020). Qualitative research, in contrast to quantitative

research, is inductive and attempts to evaluate phenomena in terms of trends and frequency

through the detailed description. The significance, experiences, and perspectives of the

participants are emphasized to foster the development of conceptions that aid in the

comprehension of natural occurrences. Answers to questions like "what," "why," and "how" can

be uncovered through qualitative research (Renjith et al., 2021). Research in this area is typically

conducted to learn more about a population's background, attitudes, or preferences or to analyze

the causes and effects of a specific behaviour. While qualitative studies might provide light on

specific situations, their findings rarely apply to broader populations.

Researchers frequently use qualitative techniques to come up with ideas that may then be

turned into interventions and tested through randomized controlled trials. Quantitative methods

may not fully explain why people engage in certain unhealthy habits or why certain patients do

not follow their prescribed therapies (Rolfe, Ramsden, Banner and Graham, 2018). Still,

qualitative research can provide light on these questions. Experts and researchers can learn

something through qualitative studies they had not thought about. As a result, quantitative

research techniques like surveys can benefit from the addition of qualitative methods, leading to

better service delivery.

Studying individuals in their natural habitats, as opposed to labs or other artificial

environments, lends itself to qualitative research. Observing individuals in their natural

environments and having conversations with them in their native language and on their terms are

essential components of this method. Clinical trials are often regarded as valuable research tools,

but they aren't optimal for studying the cultural elements that influence health and well-being in

a certain group (Renjith et al., 2021). By looking at people in their context, qualitative research

can deepen our understanding of a target group.

While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best way to test the efficacy of an

intervention or treatment, it takes a qualitative investigation of people's perspectives to

understand why the research findings are so rarely put into practice (Moffatt, White, Mackintosh

and Howel, 2006). Qualitative research emphasizes the meanings, experiences, and perspectives

of the participants in order to produce concepts that can help us comprehend social phenomena

in their natural surroundings. This strategy works best with qualitative research approaches that

value participants' actual experiences. The events, processes, and structures in one's life,

perceptions, presuppositions, and worldviews, are thought to lend themselves well to their

exploration because of the significance people attribute to them.

Methods such as interviews, observations, and the examination of documents are

examples of qualitative data collection techniques (Renjith et al., 2021). When dealing with

various situations and inquiries, it may be necessary to employ various techniques. While there

may be some variation in how each method's data is utilized, it is generally accepted that verbal

and physical communication is more important than numerical data. In qualitative research on

healthcare, semi-structured interview is typically used. The standard format for such an interview
 9

is to use an adaptable topic guide that provides a loose framework of open-ended questions to

delve into the interviewee's background and perspectives. Benefiting its adaptability, the

researcher can explore unexplored territories and generate more complete results (Rolfe,

Ramsden, Banner and Graham, 2018). It also facilitates the researcher's relationship-building

with the respondents. The advantage of semi-structured interviews is that they allow participants

to share their thoughts and experiences. These methods are frequently employed when learning

about people's unique interpretations of their life experiences is of interest.

Researchers conducting qualitative studies often confront difficult moral decisions, such

as how to balance the needs of participants with those of the study or how to ensure the

confidentiality of their participants' personal information while maintaining open and honest

communication (Sanjari et al., 2014). When researchers face conflicting challenges and must

decide between alternative methodological approaches, they may be put in a difficult ethical

position. It's possible that in such a situation, arguments would arise between several parties,

including study participants, researchers, the academic field in which the study was conducted,

the funding organization, and the general public.

The qualitative approach is used to shed light on and provide context for various facets of

the human experience. Therefore, researchers can understand people's perspectives since they

participate in everyday tasks alongside them. Scientists should remember the "do no harm"

concept, which states that they should not intentionally cause any harm to the people who

volunteer to be studied (Sanjari et al., 2014). The right to know and the right to privacy might

come into direct conflict with one another at times.

A comparison between quantitative and qualitative research methods

In qualitative research, the sample size is based on variables like the comprehensiveness

and length of the interviews and what is manageable for a single interviewer rather than a

predetermined set of guidelines (Rolfe, Ramsden, Banner and Graham, 2018). While it is

theoretically feasible to research large samples, time and budget constraints force qualitative

researchers to sacrifice breadth for depth. The sample size for interview studies is often

significantly smaller than that of quantitative research, with no more than fifty participants.

However, this might vary depending on the research topic asked.

To others, qualitative research is antithetical to quantitative approaches because it does

not seek to enumerate (Renjith et al., 2021). The tools of quantitative research, such as controlled

experiments and statistically valid surveys, are founded on a structure. Moreover, it is logical in

construction and uses sampling techniques in statistics. In contrast, qualitative researchers

conduct in-depth interviews and careful observation of their subjects. It relies on a reasonable

selection of subjects and so is inductive. To ensure their findings are correct, quantitative

researchers rely on a measure known as dependability, whereas qualitative researchers rely on a

measure known as validity (Rolfe, Ramsden, Banner and Graham, 2018). Others believe that

both qualitative and quantitative research has value, even though most researchers insist that

qualitative research is empirical rather than analytic.

The researcher plays an integral part in quantitative and qualitative research but in

different ways. According to quantitative methods, the researcher is an objective third party with

no relation to the phenomenon under study (Khalid, Hilman and Kumar, 2012). Because of this

attitude, it may be deduced that the values and viewpoints of the quantitative researcher are not
 11

believed to have any significant impact on the research procedure. The qualitative researcher, on

the other hand, is the research instrument that attempts to capture people's actual experiences in

the world (Renjith et al., 2021). In qualitative research, the researcher and the participant

interact, leading to a shared construction of meaning. When conducting qualitative research, the

researcher's background and set of beliefs are acknowledged as a factor that contributes to the

findings.

When conducting qualitative research, the researcher is immersed in the issue, making

the research process highly subjective (Rolfe, Ramsden, Banner and Graham, 2018). When

conducting quantitative research, on the other hand, the researcher is detached, making objective

observations and analyses in an effort to provide a definitive answer to the research question.

This allows qualitative researchers to gain a more comprehensive understanding of people as

they pursue their knowledge goals by factoring in the participant's perspective, purpose, and

emotions. When conducting quantitative studies, researchers give special attention to the data

they collect.

Mixed methods

Mixed methods research, in which qualitative and quantitative approaches are used

together, has recently seen a resurgence in popularity in health research. Researchers use "mixed

methods," a research strategy that entails collecting and analyzing quantitative and qualitative

data in a single study (Acri, 2012). It is a new approach gaining popularity in the health sciences,

especially in health services research. The primary idea behind this approach is that combining

quantitative and qualitative data allows for a more thorough and synergistic use of information

than possible with each method used alone.

A complementary strategy that makes the most of the capabilities of each data source and

allows for a more in-depth understanding of health issues and possible solutions is made possible

by allowing researchers to employ a variety of approaches, integrating inductive and deductive

thinking. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques can help researchers

better describe and analyze their data, improve the interpretability of their quantitative findings,

and comprehend the breadth of their qualitative findings beyond the limited sample size (Wasti

et al., 2022).

Overall, a mixed-methods study design aims to create richer and deeper knowledge by

offering a complete picture that can improve the description and comprehension of the

phenomena (Vedel et al., 2019). The utilization of quantitative and qualitative data in a single

study has contributed to the rise in the popularity of mixed-methods research. Simply put, a

mixed-methods article adds depth and breadth to the study by incorporating information from

various sources, such as interviews, observations, and surveys, to better understand the big

picture. For instance, a questionnaire for a survey will only have a select few questions that are

formatted in a certain way. The incorporation of qualitative techniques allows for collecting

additional, previously unconsidered but potentially important aspects of the topic.

Although there are many benefits to using a mixed methods approach, there are also

certain difficulties that must be overcome. When two different types of research, such as

quantitative and qualitative, are combined, it might generate problems since some people believe

that the two types of research belong to different and incompatible paradigms (Vedel et al.,

2019). Paradigms, here, refer to the prevailing ways of doing things and ways of thinking within

a certain academic community at any given period. According to proponents of this school of
 13

thought, combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies in a study is impossible and

undesirable because they represent fundamentally different and competing ways of

understanding the world and how we gather information.

Using a mix of quantitative and qualitative techniques in a single study is time-

consuming and calls for experts in both fields (Tariq and Woodman, 2013). In practice, this may

mean that a group of researchers is needed to complete a mixed-methods project successfully and

on schedule rather than a single individual. Due to the time-consuming nature of collecting and

analyzing qualitative data, researchers may opt to use a smaller sample size, which can have

implications for the reliability of statistical tests like analyses of variance and t-tests. This is a

significant problem for the design, as the researcher might not have sufficient statistical power to

back up their findings. High-quality mixed-methods studies can only be carried out by a group of

researchers from different fields working together for the greater sake of the research (Shorten

and Smith, 2017). In many contexts, it might be difficult to locate specialists with a strong

grounding in qualitative methods and a solid grounding in quantitative studies. It can be

challenging to ensure the right quality of each component of a mixed methods study because

each approach has its standards for the rigour that must be met.

Researchers may display their quantitative and qualitative data independently for multiple

demographics when presenting the findings of a mixed methods study, which many see as a

deterrent to performing such research (Curry et al., 2013). As part of this approach, it may be

decided to put out more research detailing the interpretations and conclusions after analyzing the

various forms of data. There are a lot of publications in health research, and many of them have a
 14

certain methodological foundation and somewhat severe word restrictions, both of which can

make it difficult to publish complex research that combines multiple approaches.

Conclusion

It is possible to explore a new study area, create instruments, and analyze results using a

combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies because they are separate research

approaches that yield complementary knowledge. Numerous qualitative research approaches

have been utilized fruitfully to probe questions about healthcare delivery from both the

perspective of patients and medical professionals (Bager-Charleson, 2020). They are useful for

shedding light on varying aspects of "quality" and informing quantitative methods used to study

the healthcare system. Qualitative research should guide healthcare policymakers and

practitioners as they adopt new programs and practices.

The research has implications for health policy beyond the institutional and primary care

settings where it was conducted. Research and evaluation in the field of public health frequently

employ quantitative approaches in order to ascertain the requirements of a community or

population, investigate relationships between numerous factors, and evaluate variations in results

between groups defined by demographics (Apuke, 2017).

Patient satisfaction is only one area where qualitative research methods can complement

quantitative ones in general practice studies by illuminating and explaining underlying attitudes,

beliefs, and behaviours previously inaccessible (Bager-Charleson, 2020). However, researchers

in the healthcare field who attempt to utilize a new method must have a full understanding of its

theoretical underpinning, methodology, and evaluation processes; this is especially true given the
 15

dominant role that quantitative methods have played in the field for decades. Qualitative research

in the healthcare field allows researchers to answer issues that may not be easily addressed by

quantitative approaches. It also helps in the formation of theories by placing the phenomenon

being examined in the cultural or environmental context in which it has been studied.

In recent years, there has been a rise in the number of research studies in the field of

healthcare that make use of a combination of different research methodologies (Shorten and

Smith, 2017). Using this scientific method has the benefit of providing a more in-depth

understanding of observed healthcare occurrences by triangulating data from multiple sources. In

terms of health care research, mixed-method studies are advantageous because they can provide

a more complete picture than any one method can on its own. Researchers that employ mixed

methods in their studies should employ rigorous approaches when designing their studies and

provide important methodological details when writing up their findings (Wasti et al., 2022).
 16

References

Acri, M., 2012. Methodological Reporting in Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Health Services Research Articles. [online] onlinelibrary. Available at:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01344.x

Apuke, O., 2017. Quantitative Research Methods : A Synopsis Approach. [online] researchgate.

Available at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320346875_Quantitative_Research_Methods_

A_Synopsis_Approach

Bager-Charleson, S., 2020. Introduction: Considering Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed

Methods Research. [online] Academia.edu. Available at:

https://www.academia.edu/64880439/Introduction_Considering_Qualitative_Quantitative

_and_Mixed_Methods_Research

Creswell, J., Klassen, A., Clark, V. and Smith, K., 2018. Best Practices for Mixed Methods

Research in the Health Sciences. [online] journals.sagepub. Available at:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1473325013493540a

Curry, L., Krumholz, H., O’Cathain, A., Clark, V., Cherlin, E. and Bradley, E., 2013. Mixed

Methods in Biomedical and Health Services Research. [online] Circulation:

Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. Available at:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.112.967885
 17

Kaiser, M., 2019. Quantitative methods. [online] forskningsetikk. Available at:

https://www.forskningsetikk.no/en/resources/the-research-ethics-

library/methods/quantitative-

methods/#:~:text=These%20ethical%20norms%20include%20issues,all%20those%20wh

o%20undertake%20research

Khalid, K., Hilman, H. and Kumar, D., 2012. Get along with quantitative research process.

[online] researchgate. Available at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259359212_GET_ALONG_WITH_QUANTIT

ATIVE_RESEARCH_PROCESS

Moffatt, S., White, M., Mackintosh, J. and Howel, D., 2006. Using quantitative and qualitative

data in health services research – what happens when mixed method findings conflict?

[ISRCTN61522618]. [online] bmchealthservres. Available at:

https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6963-6-28#Sec17

Renjith, V., Yesodharan, R., Noronha, J., Ladd, E. and George, A., 2021. Qualitative Methods in

Health Care Research. [online] PubMed Central (PMC). Available at:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8106287/

Rolfe, D., Ramsden, V., Banner, D. and Graham, I., 2018. Using qualitative Health Research

methods to improve patient and public involvement and engagement in research. [online]

researchinvolvement. Available at:

https://researchinvolvement.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40900-018-0129-8
 18

Sanjari, M., Bahramnezhad, F., Fomani, F., Shoghi, M. and Cheraghi, M., 2014. Ethical

challenges of researchers in qualitative studies: the necessity to develop a specific

guideline. [online] PubMed Central (PMC). Available at:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4263394/

Shorten, A. and Smith, J., 2017. Mixed methods research: expanding the evidence base. [online]

ebn.bmj. Available at: https://ebn.bmj.com/content/ebnurs/20/3/74.full.pdf

Tariq, S. and Woodman, J., 2013. Using mixed methods in health research. [online] ncbi.

Available at:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3697857/#:~:text=Mixed%20methods%

20research%20is%20the,especially%20within%20health%20services%20research

Vedel, I., Kaur, N., Hong, Q., El Sherif, R., Khanassov, V., Godard-Sebillotte, C., Sourial, N.,

Yang, X. and Pluye, P., 2019. Why and how to use mixed methods in primary health care

research. [online] ncbi. Available at:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6544942/

Wasti, S., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Sathian, B. and Banerjee, I., 2022. The Growing

Importance of Mixed-Methods Research in Health. [online] europepmc. Available at:

https://europepmc.org/article/med/35528457