The use of scientific sources in medicine is an integral part of the clinical practice of a specialist. This approach allows not only to achieve professional and personal growth of the medical professional but also to achieve a culture of evidence-based and justified decisions. In other words, referring to the evidence-based writings of reputable authors can reduce the likelihood of medical errors and improve the quality of dental services provided. In this discussion post, two scientific papers were selected that differ in their approach to the study.
Generally, qualitative studies aim for an in-depth and comprehensive study of the object of study. Thus, Mandal et al. (2017) explored mechanical oral cleaning methods through a historical paradigm as such a goal. Specifically, the authors sought to answer the question of how plaque cleaning techniques have evolved and what progress this procedure has made in modern society. On the other hand, traditional quantitative studies have sought to explore the topic in terms of numerical characteristics. This is well illustrated by Salman et al. (2004), whose aim was to measure plaque trends in correlation with patient age and gender. More specifically, the researchers showed that plaque intensity was associated with age: the older the participant in the experiment, the stronger their teeth were covered by the natural biofilm.
As it can be seen, the two studies examined the same problem – plaque – but approached the topic from different perspectives. In particular, the qualitative study sought to measure the dynamics and evolution of the tools, while the paper-based on quantitative measurements aimed to conduct a statistically significant experiment with the establishment of patterns. To put it another way, the central questions of the first paper were “how” and “why,” while the second piece sought to answer questions of “how much” and “how numerically related.” In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the methodologies used wholly satisfy the goals set forth and define the study’s nature. Thus, Salman et al. (2004) use the technique of estimating plaque by Silness and Löe indices, which are widely used methods of quantitative analysis (Starke et al., 2019). The emphasis on a sample of 224 participants and the statistical validation of the results’ reliability also condition the quantitative nature of the study. On the other hand, qualitative studies tend to theoretically approach the measurement of the phenomenon under study, which can be accomplished through a literature review and evaluation of existing data (Bhandari, 2020). The article by Mandal et al. (2017) is based on a phenomenological analysis of the history of plaque cleaning methods and thus fully meets the criteria of a secondary qualitative study.
In conclusion, it is worth noting that the selection of articles for discussion established several exciting patterns. First and foremost, the respiratory industry’s evidence base continues to evolve, and a large body of current research confirms this. Simultaneously, many of the papers have a narrow specialization and tend to address a specific topic rather than a broad range of problems. It is also noticeable that the study of fundamental chronic diseases related to the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems continues to be relevant. Indeed, a commitment to evidence-based medicine can be intimidating for conservative professionals accustomed to trusting their experience and their colleagues’ opinions. Fear of being wrong and breaking one’s credibility can be a severe barrier to following EBP. Moreover, it can be difficult for some respiratory physicians to use the basics of EBP because it generally requires much more patience and time resources. It is much quicker and more convenient for conservative physicians to diagnose a patient based on personal experience or advice from a colleague, but without resorting to instrumental methods of analysis and interpretation of complex cardiograms. To overcome such obstacles, the clinic should develop a culture of learning and encourage the use of evidence-based principles. This can be accomplished through pieces of training and seminars in which all health care providers learn the EBP philosophy. Moreover, when following these principles, it is appropriate to consider rewards and incentives initially.
References
Bhandari, P. (2020). An introduction to qualitative research. Scribbr. Web.
Mandal, A., Dhirendra, K. S., Humaira, S, Diptajit, D., & Dey, A. K. (2017). New dimensions in mechanical plaque control: An overview. Indian Journal of Dental Sciences, 9(2), 133−139.
Salman, F. D., Rayia J. A., & Al–Sayagh, G. D. (2004). Oral hygiene and gingival health among adult population (21–80) years in Thamar-Yemen.” Al-Rafidain Dental Journal, 4(1), 49−53.
Starke, E. M., Mwatha, A., Ward, M., Argosino, K., Jenkins, W., Millemam, J. L., & Millemam, K. R. (2019). A comparison of the effects of a powered and manual toothbrush on gingivitis and plaque: A randomized parallel clinical trial.” The Journal of Clinical Dentistry, 30, 24-29.