A Qualitative Study of Patient and Physician Perspectives

What is the purpose of this research?

The purpose of the research was to evaluate whether a specially designed technology could be helpful for individuals suffering from diabetes. The potential of Cardiac Autonomic Neuropathy (CAN) has been assessed in increasing client engagement in the process of care.

What is the research question (or questions)? This may be implicit or explicit

The research question was whether or not the use of CAN assisted specialists in delivering health-related information to clients, and if it contributed to their engagement (Pals et al., 2015).

Give a complete description of the research design of this study

The research design was rather complex. The team has taken field notes, conducted interviews and observations. The research process took three months during which the team attended patient-specialist meetings, interviewed individuals on their comprehension and experience with the new technology, and gathered feedback from specialists on their impressions of CAN application (Pals et al., 2015).

What is the population (sample) for this study?

Overall, 19 clients have participated in the research. There were 16 men and three women. Patients were suffering from diabetes, and their doctors were monitoring their condition. The sample was selected from a Danish clinic. The age of participants varied from 36 to 79 years of age (Pals et al., 2015).

Was the sampling approach adequate for the research design that was selected and explain why?

Even though it is qualitative research, the number of participants is too small. According to the article, few middle and senior age patients have participated in the research, which is significant since older individuals can be reluctant to use technologies. In addition, it is unclear whether the faculty was also in middle or senior ages, which could also affect the quality of the results obtained.

Describe the data collection procedure

Data gathering proceeded during November 2013 – January 2014 (Pals et al., 2015). Patients who were receiving CAN test participated in the research. Laboratory technicians were responsible for carrying out the test, and physicians were required to observe the process of information delivery.

How were the data analyzed?

A content analysis was carried out to determine the patterns from field records and interviews. The data were examined further to determine common statements and divide them into categories. After that, the categories for both patients and doctors have been compiled and analyzed to determine mutual patterns. The team also evaluated their assumptions and assessed whether their participation has anyhow influenced the study results.

Discuss the limitations found in the study?

Notably, the majority of clients did not remember if they have obtained their CAN test results; therefore, they couldn’t reflect on their experience (Pals et al., 2015). In addition, the research team did not compare the technology under analysis with similar tools that have been employed.

Discuss the authors’ conclusions. Do you feel these conclusions are based on the data that they collected?

The study has not been able to reveal if the CAN test was effective since physicians were unable to communicate the results to their clients, which had no stimulation effect on individuals. Therefore, there were no sufficient data. The team has proposed to communicate the details of testing in a more concise and clear matter so that patients can comprehend how it is performed and what its meaning is.

How does this advance knowledge in the field?

The main implication of the study is that new technologies are difficult to implement. Apart from that, the results have evidenced the need to provide sufficient instructional information to both patients and doctors so that the new method can be applied.

References

Pals, R. S., Hansen, U. M., Johansen, C. B., Hansen, C. S., Jørgensen, M. E., Fleischer, J., & Willaing, I. (2015). Making sense of new technology in clinical practice: A qualitative study of patient and physician perspectives. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1), 1-10.