The Perceptions of Coronary Heart Disease among a Sample of Hong Kong Chinese People - Essay Example

?Critique Introduction The practice of conducting academic research has almost come to stay and would therefore continue year in and out. However, conducting academic research is characterized with following specific and laid down rules and outlines. To this effect, critique of research reports remains an important practice in academic cycles. The nursing profession is no excuse when talking about the need to critique research works. General critique of research works ensures shortfalls are identified and corrected for future researches. It also ensures that new ideas and techniques are picked from existing researches for future use. It is against this backdrop that this essay is seeking to critically review and appraise the research undertaken by Chan, Lopel And Chung. Research Design The aim of the research was stated as “to investigate the perceptions of coronary heart disease among a sample of Hong Kong Chinese people.” Qualitative study was conducted using focus group interviews. To a very large extent, qualitative research has been endorsed as a very appropriate research methodology for social rather than scientific researches. Since this research was set out to find the perceptions of people about a health related issue, it could be concluded that this is a social research. To this effect, it is right the qualitative research was used. Ereaut (2011) notes that “Qualitative research seeks out the ‘why’, not the ‘how’ of its topic through the analysis of unstructured information – things like interview transcripts.” This also means that the choice of interview as a research design was appropriate since the research method was a qualitative research method. These two points not withstanding, in relating the research design, which was group interview to the aim of the research, it could be said that the researchers could have resorted to one-on-one interview instead of group interview. This is because the research aim focused on finding the perception of people on the coronary heart disease. In a situation like this where people’s perception are sort in a group interview, it is likely that the view, ideas and perceptions of some people would be influenced by others in the same interview group and would therefore undermine the core aim of the research, which is to find the individual perception of people. Sampling The researchers clearly stated the recruitment method or strategy used saying that “Convenience and snowball sampling methods were used” (Choi et al, 2010). They also explained how the participants were selected stating that “The LRP participants were recruited from the public domains; Participants in the MRF and MI groups were recruited from one cardiac rehabilitation and prevention centre in the community-based hospital” (Choi et al, 2010). Again, the researchers were clear on why the participants recruited were the most appropriate for the study. To this effect, they wrote that “The LRP participants had three or less CHD risk factors; The MRF participants had four or more CHD risk factors with or without a history of CHD, and the MI participants had a medical diagnosis of MI” (Choi et al, 2010). Relating the recruitment strategy to literature, Treweek et al (2010) explain that there should be sufficient participants for the research. In this direction, it can be said that the researchers were right in choosing to pick participants from as many as three different quarters. Again, Treweek et al (2010) posit that it is appropriate that “participants know which treatment they are receiving in the trial, rather than having some of them receive a placebo or dummy intervention to mask this.” In this area also, it could be said that the researchers took the right step because it was clearly stated that “Each eligible participant recruited was given detailed explanation of the nature and purpose of the study. They were also informed that participation was on a voluntary basis and that they could withdraw from the study at any time.” On the need to give participants prior briefing, Pamela, Parsons, and Letley (2003) believe that such briefing helps researchers to identify participants who would voluntarily fall out of the research because they would find the research not appropriate for them. When such voluntary fall outs are made, it goes a long way to ensuring that the research participants are only people who are ready and committed to the course of the research work. Data collection The researchers make readers understand that “The focus group interviews were mostly conducted in the community centres and the cardiac rehabilitation and prevention centres.” (Choi et al, 2010). Indeed the community centre offers a very wide area as far as space is concerned to contain as many interviewees as possible at any point in time. The community centre also offers appropriate ventilation and lighting as required of all standard community centres. The cardiac rehabilitation and prevention centre was also appropriate in the sense that it could serve as a resource centre for the handling and collection of information on relevant and technical aspects of the research. These points not withstanding, the question of whether or not there was enough privacy for the interviewees as far as the community centre and rehabilitation centre were concerned were not answered by researchers. As public places, these two settings could undermine the privacy of the participants. On how data were collected and the justification of it thereof, it could be said that the researchers stated that group interview was used though they did not give specific reasons as to why this kind of interview was used. The researchers were however clear on how the group interviews were conducted stating that with the permission of the participants, the question and answer sections were tape-recorded. Indeed for interviews, it is right and appropriate to use tape recordings since they offer the researcher the opportunity to refer back to interactions that were made in the course of the research. McNamara C. (2010) however cautions that as regularly as possible, researchers must check to be sure that their recorders are working. It was however not stated whether or not any event called for the modification of the interview strategy. Reflexivity The role of the researchers, especially the interviewer was clearly stated in the research write-up. According to the research report, the role of the first author included to: guide the interviews, raise follow up questions, manage group dynamics, and audiotape the entire interview session. To a large extent, the work of the interviewer was undertaken in such a way that would be devoid of bias and unfairness. Again, the interviewer was to ensure that there were no biases on the part of the interviewers. This was done “by encouraging quiet participants to share their views, ensuring that outspoken participants did not bias the discussion and encouraging respondents to elaborate on views that differed from the predominant opinion.” However though, it was not clearly stated how the researchers evaluated their roles in the research work. Neil, William and Revenstorf (1984) admonishes that “New standards and conventions are needed to serve as criteria for classifying therapy subjects into categories of improved, unimproved, and deteriorated based on response to treatment.” It is therefore sad that the researchers did not put in place any measures that ensured that their role in the formulation of research questions, data collection, including sample recruitment and choice of location were examined or evaluated. Finally, the research was silent on whether or not there was the need for any changes in the course of the organization and conduct of the research work. Ethical Issues By and large, it could be said that ethical issues were greatly respected by the researchers in the conduct of their research work. First and foremost, participants were not put in suspense as to why they had been chosen by the researchers and what their roles were going to be. Rather, the researchers took time to explain the usefulness of the research to the participants. Furthermore, the researchers gave the respondents the liberty to decide whether or not they were willing to continue with the research work after the core aspects of their roles were defined to them. Again, participants were assured of their confidentiality though this was doubtful since group interview was employed as the research design. Koduah (2001, p.23) explains that one weakness of group interview is that participants can hardly be assured whether or not their views and responses will not be leaked to the public domain by co-interviewees. Finally, there was no point in the research write-up where mention was made of any referrals to the ethics committee though general permission was sought from the university authority. Data Analysis Data analysis was very rigorous and this was a major strength of the research. This is seen in the fact that though the entire research was supposed to be a qualitative research, there were points in the presentation of the data analysis where quantitative data analysis was employed. Sufficient themes were built to cover the data analysis and researchers used sufficient data from secondary sources to support their own data analysis. Findings There were several themes built and under each theme, there was a clear statement of findings. This not withstanding, there was not clear cut statement of findings that could fit all the themes that were set or that could umbrella all the themes under one major theme such as the research aim. Value of the research Appiah (2010, p.213) explains that though there exist different types of research design, all research works should be focused towards achieving a set target and bringing about change. According to him, when this is achieved, we can conclude that a piece of research work has been of value. To this end, it can be said that the research has been very valuable. This is so because the researchers were able to achieve their research aim. More to this, the value of the research can be measured in terms of how relevant the research was to clinical practice. According to the researchers, “Understanding the Hong Kong Chinese participants’ perceptions of CHD is vital in developing illness prevention and health promotion strategies to increase their levels of knowledge of CHD risk factors reduction” and this is how valuable the research conducted was. Conclusion By and large, the researchers were right on course. The research topic was timely and very relevant in today’s contemporary social economic standing. As health professional, finding out the mentality and level of knowledge of people on health related issues is very important in disease control. This is because an idea of the level of knowledge of people on a particular health issues informs the health worker on where to begin education of the masses from. This research has therefore exposed health professionals to where to begin their education on coronary heart disease from. REFERENCE LIST Appiah K. F (2010). Evaluating the Essence of a Research Work. Golden Publication: Kumasi Choi W. C., Violeta L. and Chung J. W. A qualitative study of the perceptions of coronary heart disease among Hong Kong Chinese people. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20, 1151–1159. Available from http://www.academia-research.com/filecache/instr/2/558382_2._chan_lopez_chung.pdf Ereaut G. (2011). What is Qualitative Research? Retrieved July 30, 2011 from http://www.qsrinternational.com/what-is-qualitative-research.aspx Koduah I (2001). Research as an Academic Exercise. PrintMark Group Limited: Accra McNamara C. (2010). General Guidelines for Conducting Research Interviews. Retrieved July 30, 2011 from http://managementhelp.org/businessresearch/interviews.htm Neil S. J., William C. F. and Revenstorf D. Psychotherapy outcome research: Methods for reporting variability and evaluating clinical significance. Behavior Therapy. Volume 15, Issue 4, September 1984, Pages 336-352. Available from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789484800027 Pamela L. C., Parsons S., and Letley L. Recruitment Strategies for Research. British Journal of General Practice. 2003 July; 53(492): 568. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1314659/ Treweek et al. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 4. Art. No.: MR000013. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 Read More