Nelson Antonia M
University of Connecticut School of Nursing, 231 Glenbrook Road, Unit 2026, Storrs, CT 06269-1246, USA.
Int J Nurs Stud. 2008 Feb;45(2):316-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.01.012. Epub 2007 Mar 23.
The current evidence-based practice (EBP) movement in healthcare emphasizes that clinical decision making should be based on the "best evidence" available, preferably the findings of randomized clinical trials. Within this context qualitative research findings are considered to have little value and the old debate in nursing has been re-ignited related to whether qualitative versus quantitative research findings provides the best empirical evidence for nursing practice. In response to this crisis qualitative scholars have been called upon by leaders in the field to clarify for outsiders what qualitative research is and to be more explicit in pointing out the utility of qualitative research findings. In addition, attention to "quality" in qualitative research has been identified as an area worthy of renewed focus. Within this paper two key problems related to addressing these issues are reviewed: disagreement not only among "outsiders" but also some nursing scholars related to the definition of "qualitative research", and a lack of consensus related how to best address "rigor" in this type of inquiry. Based on this review a set of standard requirements for qualitative research published in nursing journals is proposed that reflects a uniform definition of qualitative research and an enlarged yet clearly articulated conceptualization of quality. The approach suggested provides a framework for developing and evaluating qualitative research that would have both defensible scholarly merit and heuristic value. This will help solidify the argument in favor of incorporating qualitative research findings as part of the empirical "evidence" upon which evidence-based nursing is founded.
当前医疗保健领域基于证据的实践(EBP)运动强调,临床决策应基于可得的“最佳证据”,最好是随机临床试验的结果。在此背景下,定性研究结果被认为价值不大,护理领域关于定性研究结果与定量研究结果何者能为护理实践提供最佳实证证据的旧有争论再度燃起。为应对这一危机,该领域的领导者呼吁定性研究学者向外界阐明定性研究是什么,并更明确地指出定性研究结果的效用。此外,定性研究中的“质量”问题已被确定为值得重新关注的领域。本文回顾了与解决这些问题相关的两个关键问题:不仅“外界人士”,而且一些护理学者在“定性研究”定义上存在分歧,以及在如何最好地处理此类研究中的“严谨性”方面缺乏共识。基于这一回顾,本文提出了一套针对发表在护理期刊上的定性研究的标准要求,该要求反映了定性研究的统一界定以及对质量的更宽泛但表述清晰的概念化。所建议的方法提供了一个用于开展和评估定性研究的框架,该框架兼具经得起推敲的学术价值和启发价值。这将有助于强化支持将定性研究结果纳入循证护理所依据的实证“证据”一部分的论点。