Qualitative Health Research in the Era of Evidence-Based Practice

2006 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 1371-1385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria H. F. Grypdonck
2010 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 615-628 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Townsend ◽  
Susan M. Cox ◽  
Linda C. Li

BackgroundIncreasing challenges to health care systems and the prominence of patient-centered care and evidence-based practice have fostered the application of qualitative approaches in health care settings, prompting discussions of associated ethical issues in a range of disciplines.ObjectivesThe purposes of this work were to identify and describe the application and value of qualitative health research for physical therapy and to identify ethical considerations in a qualitative research study.DesignThis was a qualitative interview study with telephone follow-ups.MethodsForty-six participants were interviewed about their early experiences with rheumatoid arthritis. They also were asked what motivated them to volunteer for the study. To inform the discussion of ethics in qualitative health research, this study drew on the in-depth interviews, took a descriptive approach to the data, and applied the traditional ethical principles of autonomy, justice, and beneficence to the study process.ResultsEthical issues emerged in this qualitative health research study that were both similar to and different from those that exist in a positivist paradigm (eg, clinical research). With flexibility and latitude, the traditional principle approach can be applied usefully to qualitative health research.ConclusionsThese findings build on previous research and discussion in physical therapy and other disciplines that urge a flexible approach to qualitative research ethics and recognize that ethics are embedded in an unfolding research process involving the role of the subjective researcher and an active participant. We suggest reflexivity as a way to recognize ethical moments throughout qualitative research and to help build methodological and ethical rigor in research relevant to physical therapist practice.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 92-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart G Nicholls

Proposed changes to the Common Rule are proffered to save almost 7,000 reviews annually and consequently vast amounts of investigator and IRB-member time. However, the proposed changes have been subject to criticism. While some have lauded the changes as being imperfect, but nevertheless as improvements, others have contended that ‘neither the scientific community nor the public can be confident that improved practices will emerge from the regulatory changes mandated by the NPRM.’ In the present article, I discuss an important aspect that has been overlooked: the question of whether benefits will emerge is demonstrably empirical, yet data upon which to draw conclusions are conspicuous by their absence. This is thrown into sharp relief when we consider the current environment in which health research is increasingly focused on providing evidence of need or benefit, where there is greater emphasis on evidence-based practice, and when we have the nascent field of implementation science.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annet H. de Lange ◽  
Lise Tevik Løvseth ◽  
Kevin Rui-Han Teoh ◽  
Marit Christensen

2021 ◽  
pp. appi.ps.2020005
Author(s):  
Paige E. Cervantes ◽  
Dana E. M. Seag ◽  
Katherine L. Nelson ◽  
Jonathan Purtle ◽  
Kimberly Eaton Hoagwood ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 688-704
Author(s):  
Katrina Fulcher-Rood ◽  
Anny Castilla-Earls ◽  
Jeff Higginbotham

Purpose The current investigation is a follow-up from a previous study examining child language diagnostic decision making in school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs). The purpose of this study was to examine the SLPs' perspectives regarding the use of evidence-based practice (EBP) in their clinical work. Method Semistructured phone interviews were conducted with 25 school-based SLPs who previously participated in an earlier study by Fulcher-Rood et al. 2018). SLPs were asked questions regarding their definition of EBP, the value of research evidence, contexts in which they implement scientific literature in clinical practice, and the barriers to implementing EBP. Results SLPs' definitions of EBP differed from current definitions, in that SLPs only included the use of research findings. SLPs seem to discuss EBP as it relates to treatment and not assessment. Reported barriers to EBP implementation were insufficient time, limited funding, and restrictions from their employment setting. SLPs found it difficult to translate research findings to clinical practice. SLPs implemented external research evidence when they did not have enough clinical expertise regarding a specific client or when they needed scientific evidence to support a strategy they used. Conclusions SLPs appear to use EBP for specific reasons and not for every clinical decision they make. In addition, SLPs rely on EBP for treatment decisions and not for assessment decisions. Educational systems potentially present other challenges that need to be considered for EBP implementation. Considerations for implementation science and the research-to-practice gap are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document