Dysthymia is a kind of depressive disorder, but it is characterized by less pronounced severity and a much longer course. It drastically reduces quality of life and therefore requires scientific consideration, but in a more practical way. Qualitative analysis may seem appropriate enough to describe dysthymia and even to find solutions applicable in therapy and self-treatment. In particular, the issue that needs to be clarified using this method is how exactly the patients themselves see the situation in which they receive help.
As part of a hypothetical experiment, it is required to involve 300-400 participants in a survey. The questionnaire will be sent online, while personal data will be anonymised. Questions from different aspects consider the situation in which dysthymia sufferers would get better. A number of perspectives are listed in the questionnaire: whether external assistance is needed and what kind, whether professional assistance is needed and what kind. There is also an additional open-answer question, “Is my ideal therapy different from that I would recommended for everyone, and why?” The question offers a free response format, and may shed light on the individuality and subjectivity of any recommended therapy for dysphoria.
Participants who responded to the open call are not limited by gender or age characteristics – which would be culturally insensitive as well as illogical at the first stage of the study. However, further interpretation of the data is required subsequently if there are matches between demographic subgroups and responses. The current participants have to answer questions in text form, in the format of a free essay. A flexible linguistic narrative analysis, which implies a gradual reduction of the text to structural foundations, can be a valuable basis for the interpretation process (Frost, 2011). The best-case scenarios will be categorized: with external assistance, medical intervention, therapy, improvement of living conditions, strengthening of social ties and self-esteem.
Such different decisions can be further categorized according to the following general principles: positive/negative impact of external social and medical support, and the overall belief in the possibility of ever getting better. This type of analysis can be classified as multi-perspective, since it interprets texts that offer different approaches to solving the same issue. The main approach of this analysis is pluralistic, taking into account multiple choice answers that go beyond statistics while ensuring complete anonymity of survey participants.
Reference
Frost, N. (2011). Qualitative research methods in psychology: Combining core approaches. Open University Press.