Colorafi K. J., Evans B. (2016). Qualitative descriptive methods in health science research. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 9( 4), 16-25. [ PMC free article] [ PubMed] [ Google Scholar] Malterud K., Siersma V. D., Guassora A. D. (2015). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26, 1753–1760. [ PubMed] [ Google Scholar]

There should be sufficient detail provided in the methods section for you to replicate the study (should you want to). To enable you to do this, the following sections are normally included: The second qualitative research conducted by Carlsson and Gunningberg (2017) has two clearly stated objectives. The initial objective was to identify and describe different ways in which nurses understand unavoidable PUs in late palliative care. Then the second objective was to explore the expediency of the different levels of understanding the unavoidable PUs. The recruited participants were 8 nurses and 7 healthcare assistants (HCA) who work in various nursing homes and specialist palliative inpatient care units in Sweden. A purposeful sampling was also used f or recruiting the participants. The data was collected using a semi-structured interview which lasted between 20-45 minutes per participant. The interviews were tape-recorded and the data was transcribed and analysed using the phenomenological analysis steps. The study was approved by the regional ethical review board. The result of the study shows that the entire participant agreed that prevention of PUs in End of Life (EoL) care is worthwhile and that not all PUs in dying patients can be prevented and this reflects the topic that was reviewed.Quantitative research is underpinned by positivism, based on scientific laws and truths which emerge from research that is observed and measured (Gerrish and Lathlean, 2015). Findings from research with minimal or no bias hold greater validity (Gerrish and Lathlean, 2015).

An important aspect when designing a study is the sample size, too small can be difficult to generalise the findings and too large can become timely and costly research (Parahoo, 2014).Sullivan-Bolyai S., Bova C., Harper D. (2005). Developing and refining interventions in persons with health disparities: The use of qualitative description. Nursing Outlook, 53, 127–133. [ PubMed] [ Google Scholar]

Barakat-Johnson, M., Lai, M., Wand, T. and White, K. (2019) ‘A qualitative study of the thoughts and experiences of hospital nurses providing pressure injury prevention and management’, Collegian, 26(1), pp.95-102. For questionnaires to be of any use within research, they need to produce valid and reliable data. Validity relates to the questionnaire asking and finding out information relating to the aims of the study (Parahoo, 2014). Reliability relates to the participant’s understanding of the questions and responding to them in the same way. (Parahoo, 2014). QIP ideas [Internet]. Royal College of General Practitioners. [cited 17 May 2021]. Available from: https://www.rcgp.org.uk/training-exams/training/new-wpba/qip.aspx Stanley M. (2015). Qualitative description: A very good place to start. In Nayar S., Stanley M. (Eds.), Qualitative research methodologies for occupational science and therapy (pp. 21–36). New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar] Martínez-Mesa, J., González-Chica, D., Bastos, J., Bonamigo, R. and Duquia, R. (2014) ‘Sample size: how many participants do I need in my research?’, Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia, 89(4), pp.609-615.Elo S., Kyngas H. (2008). The qualitative content process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107–115. [ PubMed] [ Google Scholar] Petkovic, J., Duench, S., Welch, V., Rader, T., Jennings, A., Forster, A. and Tugwell, P. (2018) ‘Potential harms associated with routine collection of patient sociodemographic information: A rapid review’, Health Expectations, 22(1), pp.114-129. Streubert H. J., Carpenter D. R. (2011). Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative (5th ed.). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer. [ Google Scholar]

The goal of qualitative description research is not “discovery” as is the case in grounded theory, not to “explain” or “seeking to understand” as with ethnography, not to “explore a process” as is a case study or “describe the experiences” as is expected in phenomenology ( Doody & Bailey, 2016). Qualitative description research seeks instead to provide a rich description of the experience depicted in easily understood language ( Sullivan-Bolyai et al., 2005). The researcher seeks to discover and understand a phenomenon, a process, or the perspectives and worldviews of the people involved ( Caelli et al., 2003). A qualitative description approach, therefore, offers the opportunity to gather rich descriptions about a phenomenon which little may be known about. Within the process, the researcher strives to stay close to the “surface of the data and events” ( Sandelowski, 2000, p. 336), where the experience is described from the viewpoint of the participants ( Sullivan-Bolyai et al., 2005). Whilst the closed-questions were clear and unambiguous, response was limited to two answers whereas a scale of competence could have been used providing a more detailed range of response e.g. Like-RT type scale (Gray et al., 2017). The open-questions were also clear and unambiguous and trends appeared in the responses indicating the participants interpreted the questions similarly. This concludes the questionnaire holds reliability. However, the questionnaire includes qualitative methodology and mixes the two methods.Furthermore, Van den Besselaar and Sandström (2017) highlighted the importance of mixed gender research to ensure that the results apply to everyone, however, Barakat-Johnson et al. (2019) study was found to be gender-biased as all the participants were females, as a result, the sample did not represent the views of both male nurses and hence might not be transferable. Also, in the Carlsson and Gunningberg (2017) study, the researchers recruited only one male nurse and no male HCA. Evidently, the qualitative studies finding may be limited to a certain group of people (Thompson, 2016). Cislak, Formanowicz and Saguy (2018) agreed that inappropriate representation of both male and female views in healthcare research produces a finding which holds a biased knowledge. As a result, the two qualitative research papers may encounter disparagement in this criterion (Allotey, Allotey-Reidpath and Reidpath, 2017; SIGN, 2018).