What is the purpose of this research?
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
The purpose of the study is to examine the way how the integration of new technologies in clinical practice is perceived by healthcare providers and patients focusing on the use of a handheld device, Vagus, specifically designed for Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy (CAN) screening in patients with diabetes.
What is the research question (or questions)? This may be implicit or explicit.
What implications does the use of Vagus for CAN screening have for a) patients’ experience and outcomes and b) for clinical practice? Is the introduction of new technology perceived as feasible and useful by healthcare practitioners?
Give a complete description of the research design of this study.
It is a qualitative case study. It was meant to describe and analyze the in-depth experiences and views of two population groups. The major methods used included observations and interactions with study participants, whereas the data was examined through synthesis. The outcome of the given research approach is an extensive description of subjective experiences.
What is the population (sample) for this study?
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
The final samples comprised 19 patients with diabetes and 8 physicians working in a specialized diabetes clinical setting in Copenhagen. Additionally, a total number of 8 medical consultations were observed.
Was the sampling approach adequate for the research design that was selected and explain why?
Pals et al. (2015) used a purposeful sampling technique to recruit both physicians and patients. The researchers’ choice meets the purposes of the study, as well as the overall research design characteristics because it assisted them in the identification and selection of individuals who could provide them with sufficient information on the problem of their interest.
Describe the data collection procedure.
The data were collected in several ways: observations of medical consultations where the screening results were communicated, personal interviews with patients who underwent CAN screening, and personal interviews with physicians who communicated test results to patients.
How were the data analyzed?
The collected information was analyzed qualitatively by using content analysis, which helped Pals et al. (2015) make inferences regarding the links between variables and interpret the data accordingly. First, the data was separated and systematized into categories. Then it was compared between the samples (physicians and patients) to identify common features. Afterward, the findings were recorded.
Discuss the limitations found in the study?
The qualitative methodology provides subjective data, which can be associated with personal biases undermining the credibility of findings. However, Pals et al. (2015) used standardized and scholarly tools and analysis frameworks. Thus, it helped them to minimize possible risks of biasing. Another limitation is the small sample size. The inclusion of a larger number of study participants could allow increasing the quality and generalizability of the obtained evidence.
Discuss the authors’ conclusions. Do you feel these conclusions are based on the data that they collected?
In conclusion, Pals et al. (2015) suggest using a dialog-based approach towards the communication of CAN screening results to patients as it may help them understand the aims of the technology use better. The assumption is rather based on findings derived from other scholarly sources investigating similar clinical problems as, in the given study, the researchers did not consider various behavior-specific factors in patients and physicians. Nevertheless, the assumption seems to be valid and based on the current findings as well.
How does this advance knowledge in the field?
The study contributes to the field by demonstrating how the identification of barriers towards technology integration may help develop strategies towards their timely elimination and improvement of patients’ outcomes and health practitioners’ experiences.
Pals, R. S., Hansen, U. M., Johansen, C. B., Hansen, C. S., Jørgensen, M. E., Fleischer, J., & Willaing, I. (2015). Making sense of a new technology in clinical practice: a qualitative study of patient and physician perspectives. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1), 1-10. Web.