Complex research requires the use of different methods to ensure accuracy of results. Nursing studies are especially reliant on the availability of evidence since the practice is determined by the efficiency of certain interventions. Generally, two types of research methods are outlined – qualitative and quantitative. The purpose of this paper is to explain how the choice of methods is determined by the size of the study and the amount of data available.
The main advantage of combining both methods stems from the ability to verify the quantitative results with qualitative analysis. The study by Ruiz Hernández et al. (2021) exemplifies how meta-analysis of interviews with patients awaiting surgeries complements the statistical data favoring nursing management of patients’ preoperative anxiety. A similar approach was taken by Blume et al. (2021) who studied to interviews to verify the statistical conclusions of an umbrella review of nursing-sensitive patient outcomes. However, in both cases, there was a limited supply of papers, with nine available in the first study and fifteen summarized in the second study.
The main disadvantage of using both methods is that the depth of research is achieved at the expense of the extent. For instance, Shiferaw et al. (2020) have calculated the statistics of responses from 1268 participants in total. Meanwhile, Wu et al. (2020) had to use narrative synthesis to ascertain common themes of 1614 titles and abstracts. Had both studies utilized the other methods, the work would have taken twice as much time and effort and would have provided the same results.
In conclusion, the advantages of combining both methods are evident in small-scale research. The less data the researchers have to work with, the easier it is for them to delve deeper into analysis. When the study encompasses a large number of participants or papers, the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods is not feasible. However, smaller studies can benefit from the combination of both types of methods.
References
Blume, K. S., Dietermann, K., Kirchner‐Heklau, U., Winter, V., Fleischer, S., Kreidl, L. M., & Schreyögg, J. (2021). Staffing levels and nursing‐sensitive patient outcomes: Umbrella review and qualitative study. Health Services Research, 56(5), 885-907. Web.
Ruiz Hernández, C., Gómez‐Urquiza, J. L., Pradas‐Hernández, L., Vargas Roman, K., Suleiman‐Martos, N., Albendín‐García, L., & Cañadas‐De la Fuente, G. A. (2021). Effectiveness of nursing interventions for preoperative anxiety in adults: A systematic review with meta‐analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(8), 3274-3285. Web.
Shiferaw, W. S., Akalu, T. Y., Wubetu, A. D., & Aynalem, Y. A. (2020). Implementation of nursing process and its association with working environment and knowledge in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nursing Research and Practice, 2020(6504893), 1-10. Web.
Wu, M. L., Pu, L., Grealish, L., Jones, C., & Moyle, W. (2020). The effectiveness of nurse‐led interventions for preventing urinary tract infections in older adults in residential aged care facilities: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(9-10), 1432-1444. Web.