Critique of Research Studies – Part 2: Due Topic 6. Critique Continued.

Research Critique
Name
Institution
Date
Research Critique
Qualitative
Method
From the title, it is clear the researchers were using the qualitative case study approach. The research design the researchers used was descriptive. This is quite clear because the study aimed to explain the perceptions and experiences of healthcare clinicians working in multidisciplinary teams.
When it comes to the sample, the study focused specifically on clinicians. However, it should be noted that this sample was based on a particular requirement. The study notes, “the interviews took place in 3 geographical locations in the United Kingdom, where patients with severe or difficult-to-manage heart failure were participating in a wider, multicenter ethnographic study of unplanned hospital admission for heart failure (HoldFAST).” The sample, thus, included every clinician who was taking part in HoldFAST and the three geographical locations. This was not only included, but goal-oriented because the researchers were sure to capture the perspectives of the clinicians (as they note from primary, specialty, and community care).
The sample had 24 clinicians, and the sampling method was purposive. This means that the researchers had a specific population in mind. So, it was only right that they make use of purposive sampling. Before taking part in the study, the clinicians were asked to give written informed consents which were a way to confirm their willingness to take part in the study.
Interviews were the main method of data collection, and the study offers a link to the questions which were used during the interview. However, there was a provision as noted in their study that upon the discovery of a new issue, the interview would be carried forward in subsequent interviews. This was a way to ensure comprehensiveness in the interviews, especially when new themes were expected to emerge. Having this provision was also a way not to shut or limit the study to what the researchers believed or had concocted as they set out to conduct the study.
As noted by the researchers, “the research was approved by the National Health Service Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee South West.” This and the fact that the clinicians were asked to provide written consents was a way to enhance trust in the study.
Results
The researchers were quite specific especially when it comes to the methods they were using in their study. For the data analysis, the researchers note that it was “informed by the constant comparative method which included familiarization with the transcripts, sketching out initial themes, and conducting systematic open coding using NVivo 10 qualitative data analysis software (QRS International).” When it comes to coding, the researchers started with the first set of interviews (conducted in the first location – South West). From this, they developed a coding framework which then guided and helped with the coding of the next two sets. This was a way to ensure that everything was taken into consideration, including the uncommon or rare themes. To further increase the credibility of the data collected, the researchers included and made use of the perspectives of different profe...