Research Qualitative Review
This paper will critique the qualitative study written by Peiters, et al. (2011), which looks at the journey and barriers older women diagnosed with breast cancer must hurdle to receive treatment. This research was to reveal the complexities of breast cancer diagnosis, treatment and life in general for women greater than seventy-years old. To achieve this task, Peiters, et al. , (2011) implemented the constructivist grounded theory. The data analysis approach appropriately utilized for this research was constructivist grounded theory.
This theory allows for self reflection during data gathering and analysis, which divulges any influential prejudices that may arise from both researcher and study subject. Influencing this theory is symbolic interactionism which emphasizes ones’ ultimate ambition and the lifelong social synergy that transpires to achieve it (Peiters, et al. , 2011). The recruitment of participants was obtained by posting flyers in public areas in Southern California and two bordering states.
The locations targeted were oncology departments, cancer support agencies, oncologist offices, churches, senior community centers, and retirement centers. Newspaper advertisements, as well were used to elicit participation. Purposive and snowballing techniques were utilized. Screening for eligibility, clearly defined, was done via telephone for inclusions which ended with eighteen women all over the age of seventy, completed treatment for treatment for breast cancer within the last three to fifteen months. Informed consent was obtained and interviews took place mainly in homes or apartments lasting up to two and a half hours.
Order custom essay Research Qualitative Review with free plagiarism report
450+ experts on 30 subjects
Starting from 3 hours delivery
One limitation of the study was that second interviews stopped at only ten women and may have excluded valuable new incite to the study, although researchers claim that second interviews revealed no new data, hence implying data saturation. Adequate thick description was given of the participants, setting and study processes to ensure transferability (Polit & Beck, 2012). Interviews were guided by a questionnaire and responses were tape recorded, followed by verbatim transcription. Examples of interview questions were provided for the reader to convey effectiveness of the process (Polit & Beck, 2012).
Other helpful tables provided were the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Category schemes revealed are three barriers that theses breast cancer survivors faced, which were lack of information, preexisting co-morbidities and multiple health care appointments. These schemes prove logical for the study as they helped elaborate the purpose of the research. Multiple passages from the participants were extracted to give evidence of well interpreted data and emotional state of the participants. Data analysis was systematic initial coding, followed by focused coding using ATLAS. ti, version 6. to magnify reoccurring data. To create a audit trail, memos, field notes and diagrams were written. Two researchers, one of them being the principle investigator and the other well versed in grounded theory analysis, were responsible for coding and analyzing the data. In nursing the level of evidence provides assurance for the methods that were utilized for the study (Polit & Beck, 2012). This research would qualify as level VI, given that it is a single descriptive, qualitative, physiologic study specific to women aged seventy or older and their journey through life with breast cancer.
The goals of this research are affirmed by the extensive detailed interviews of eighteen older women and their struggles with breast cancer. Each participant plummeted through barricades to recieveing health care. The importance of an oncology nurse navigator emerged as a valuable role to help clarify the process of obtaining services for healthcare. Meticulous care was taken in the transcription of taped interviews and explicit excerpts were bestowed to the reader to ensure trustworthiness.
Cite this Page
Research Qualitative Review. (2017, May 28). Retrieved from https://phdessay.com/research-qualitative-review/
Run a free check or have your essay done for you
