A Qualitative Research of Perception Investigations in Caregivers Under the COVID-19 Pandemic

G. X, Bidulescu A
{"title":"A Qualitative Research of Perception Investigations in Caregivers Under the COVID-19 Pandemic","authors":"G. X, Bidulescu A","doi":"10.26420/austinjpublichealthepidemiol.2021.1101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We enthusiastically read the article entitled “The experiences of health-care providers during the COVID-19 crisis in China: a qualitative study” by Liu and colleagues [1]. Although this study highlights the support needed to protect the physical and mental wellness of caregivers in the COVID-19 pandemic, the potential limitations that existed in its qualitative research methods may undermine the accuracy of data collection indicated by our previous work [2,3]. First, the information gleaned from the participants could have been more productive if the authors used focus group as it leverages the power of the group dynamics to encourage back and forth conversation leading to fully exploring and expanding participant’s true feelings, thoughts, and experiences toward the COVID-19 compared to the in-depth interviews [4]. Even though some researchers claim that in-depth interviews (e.g., phone interview) are better to investigate a sensitive subject like the COVID-19 crisis that participants may feel uncomfortable to share their thoughts in front of a group of people, the recent study confirms that 1) sensitive and intimate disclosures are more likely to occur in the focus group; 2) some certain sensitive themes only happen in the focus group; and 3) neither sensitive themes emerged exclusively nor frequently in indepth interviews compared to focus group [5]. Second, ensuring the homogeneity of interest is way more critical than the general heterogeneity like the demographics of the recruited participants [6,7]. Specifically, the desirable combination of interest consensus and common ground with diverse experience is important to generate rich information. However, the perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic may be different between physicians and nurses based on the duty of these two different professional roles. This is because nurses are more likely to interact with COVID-19 patients directly and more frequently than physicians. Therefore, according to the primary research interest that investigates the experiences of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, the participants should have been limited to nurses as the frontline caregivers to maintain the homogeneity of interest. Third, considering that all participants were recruited from one local hospital, convenient sampling appears better than snowball sampling as the authors can recruit participants based on their availability and accessibility [8]. This is because scheduling participants at a time when they have more energy may yield richer information data than reaching out to them through phone interviews. These suggested changes in data collection and participant enrollment should be implemented in future qualitative research for the investigation of global pandemic crisis to reach more convincing conclusions.","PeriodicalId":93417,"journal":{"name":"Austin journal of public health and epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Austin journal of public health and epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26420/austinjpublichealthepidemiol.2021.1101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We enthusiastically read the article entitled “The experiences of health-care providers during the COVID-19 crisis in China: a qualitative study” by Liu and colleagues [1]. Although this study highlights the support needed to protect the physical and mental wellness of caregivers in the COVID-19 pandemic, the potential limitations that existed in its qualitative research methods may undermine the accuracy of data collection indicated by our previous work [2,3]. First, the information gleaned from the participants could have been more productive if the authors used focus group as it leverages the power of the group dynamics to encourage back and forth conversation leading to fully exploring and expanding participant’s true feelings, thoughts, and experiences toward the COVID-19 compared to the in-depth interviews [4]. Even though some researchers claim that in-depth interviews (e.g., phone interview) are better to investigate a sensitive subject like the COVID-19 crisis that participants may feel uncomfortable to share their thoughts in front of a group of people, the recent study confirms that 1) sensitive and intimate disclosures are more likely to occur in the focus group; 2) some certain sensitive themes only happen in the focus group; and 3) neither sensitive themes emerged exclusively nor frequently in indepth interviews compared to focus group [5]. Second, ensuring the homogeneity of interest is way more critical than the general heterogeneity like the demographics of the recruited participants [6,7]. Specifically, the desirable combination of interest consensus and common ground with diverse experience is important to generate rich information. However, the perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic may be different between physicians and nurses based on the duty of these two different professional roles. This is because nurses are more likely to interact with COVID-19 patients directly and more frequently than physicians. Therefore, according to the primary research interest that investigates the experiences of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, the participants should have been limited to nurses as the frontline caregivers to maintain the homogeneity of interest. Third, considering that all participants were recruited from one local hospital, convenient sampling appears better than snowball sampling as the authors can recruit participants based on their availability and accessibility [8]. This is because scheduling participants at a time when they have more energy may yield richer information data than reaching out to them through phone interviews. These suggested changes in data collection and participant enrollment should be implemented in future qualitative research for the investigation of global pandemic crisis to reach more convincing conclusions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新冠肺炎疫情下护理人员感知调查的定性研究
我们热情地阅读了刘及其同事的题为《新冠肺炎危机期间中国医疗保健提供者的经验:定性研究》的文章[1]。尽管这项研究强调了在新冠肺炎大流行中保护护理人员身心健康所需的支持,但其定性研究方法中存在的潜在局限性可能会破坏我们先前工作所表明的数据收集的准确性[2,3]。首先,如果作者使用焦点小组,从参与者那里收集的信息可能会更有成效,因为与深入访谈相比,焦点小组利用小组动态的力量鼓励来回对话,从而充分探索和扩大参与者对新冠肺炎的真实感受、想法和体验[4]。尽管一些研究人员声称,深入访谈(如电话访谈)更适合调查新冠肺炎危机等敏感主题,参与者在一群人面前分享自己的想法可能会感到不舒服,但最近的研究证实,1)敏感和亲密的披露更可能发生在焦点群体中;2) 某些敏感主题只发生在焦点小组中;3)与焦点小组相比,在深度访谈中既没有专门出现敏感主题,也没有频繁出现敏感主题[5]。其次,确保兴趣的同质性比招募参与者的人口统计等一般异质性更重要[6,7]。具体而言,利益共识和具有不同经验的共同点的理想结合对于生成丰富的信息很重要。然而,基于这两种不同专业角色的职责,医生和护士对新冠肺炎大流行的看法可能有所不同。这是因为护士比医生更有可能直接、更频繁地与新冠肺炎患者互动。因此,根据调查抗击新冠肺炎大流行经验的主要研究兴趣,参与者应仅限于作为一线护理人员的护士,以保持兴趣的同质性。第三,考虑到所有参与者都是从一家当地医院招募的,方便的抽样似乎比滚雪球抽样要好,因为作者可以根据参与者的可用性和可及性招募他们[8]。这是因为,与通过电话采访联系参与者相比,在参与者更有精力的时候安排他们可能会产生更丰富的信息数据。这些建议在数据收集和参与者登记方面的变化应在未来的定性研究中实施,以调查全球大流行危机,从而得出更具说服力的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Attitudes of Lazarski University Medical Students towards Disaster Medicine; Questionnaire Survey Tuberculosis in Regional Australia: Ectopic Pregnancy Complicating Indolent Genital Tract Disease Paricalcitol Ameliorated Dextran-Sulfate-Sodium-Induced Colitis in Mice through MKP-1/P38 MAPK Signaling Pathway Correlation between Count Score and Cardiovascular Events in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients Optimalresistive Force Selection and Upper Body Contribution in the Assessment of Power during High Intensity Cycle Ergometry: An Unresolved Issue
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1