Chang YunKyung, Voils Corrine I, Sandelowski Margarete, Hasselblad Vic, Crandell Jamie L
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Nursing, NC, USA.
West J Nurs Res. 2009 Nov;31(7):837-52. doi: 10.1177/0193945909334434. Epub 2009 May 15.
Reports of qualitative studies typically do not offer much information on the numbers of respondents linked to any one finding. This information may be especially useful in reports of basic, or minimally interpretive, qualitative descriptive studies focused on surveying a range of experiences in a target domain, and its lack may limit the ability to synthesize the results of such studies with quantitative results in systematic reviews. Accordingly, the authors illustrate strategies for deriving plausible ranges of respondents expressing a finding in a set of reports of basic qualitative descriptive studies on antiretroviral adherence and suggest how the results might be used. These strategies have limitations and are never appropriate for use with findings from interpretive qualitative studies. Yet they offer a temporary workaround for preserving and maximizing the value of information from basic qualitative descriptive studies for systematic reviews. They show also why quantitizing is never simply quantitative.
定性研究报告通常不会提供太多与任何一项研究结果相关的受访者数量信息。在侧重于调查目标领域一系列经历的基础定性描述性研究(即基本的或最低限度解释性的研究)报告中,这些信息可能特别有用,而其缺失可能会限制在系统评价中将此类研究结果与定量结果进行综合的能力。因此,作者阐述了在一组关于抗逆转录病毒治疗依从性的基本定性描述性研究报告中,得出表达某一研究结果的受访者合理范围的策略,并说明了这些结果可能如何使用。这些策略有其局限性,绝不适用于解释性定性研究的结果。然而,它们提供了一种临时的解决方法,以保留和最大化基础定性描述性研究信息对系统评价的价值。它们还表明了为什么量化绝不仅仅是定量的。