Literature DB >> 21056417

Comparison of 'think aloud' and observation as data collection methods in the study of decision making regarding sedation in intensive care patients.

Leanne M Aitken1, Andrea Marshall, Rosalind Elliott, Sharon McKinley.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is recognition that different data collection methods gather different aspects of decision making data. Although the selection of a method to explore nurses' decision making is partially determined by the theoretical perspective that informs each study, some flexibility remains. Description of the relative benefits of each method will enable future researchers to selectively identify which method is most suited to answering their specific research question.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the decisions identified using observation and think aloud in the study of decision making related to sedation assessment and management within intensive care, as well as to examine the strengths and weaknesses of each method in the context of this study.
DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data collected during an observational study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in one intensive care unit in a tertiary teaching hospital in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Seven self-identified expert critical care nurses.
METHODS: Nurses providing sedation management for a critically ill patient were observed and asked to think aloud during 2h of care, with follow-up interviews conducted up to 4 days later to clarify information collected. Data were analysed independently by an investigator not involved in data collection. Analysis involved identification of decision tasks with comparison of number and type of tasks identified with each of the two data collection techniques.
RESULTS: Assessment and management were the most common types of sedation decisions made by nurses in this study. A total of 130 decisions were identified using observation and 209 decisions were identified using think aloud. More management decisions were identified through observation, while more assessment decisions were identified through think aloud.
CONCLUSIONS: The two data collection methods of think aloud and observation resulted in identification of different decision tasks. These results suggest an essential consideration in design of decision making studies is the method of data collection and the type of decision data that is likely to be identified. It may be appropriate to use a combination of data collection methods to optimise the completeness of data capture.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21056417     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.07.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud        ISSN: 0020-7489            Impact factor:   5.837


  5 in total

1.  A qualitative analysis of EHR clinical document synthesis by clinicians.

Authors:  Oladimeji Farri; David S Pieckiewicz; Ahmed S Rahman; Terrence J Adam; Serguei V Pakhomov; Genevieve B Melton
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2012-11-03

2.  On averages and peaks: how do people integrate attitudes about multiple diseases to reach a decision about multiplex genetic testing?

Authors:  Shoshana Shiloh; Christopher H Wade; J Scott Roberts; Sharon Hensley Alford; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012-11-05       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Impact of Think-Aloud on Eye-Tracking: A Comparison of Concurrent and Retrospective Think-Aloud for Research on Decision-Making in the Game Environment.

Authors:  Michal Prokop; Ladislav Pilař; Ivana Tichá
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 3.576

4.  Developing a digital training tool to support oncologists in the skill of information-provision: a user centred approach.

Authors:  Sebastiaan M Stuij; Constance H C Drossaert; Nanon H M Labrie; Robert L Hulsman; Marie José Kersten; Sandra van Dulmen; Ellen M A Smets
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 2.463

5.  Older Cancer Patients' User Experiences With Web-Based Health Information Tools: A Think-Aloud Study.

Authors:  Sifra Bolle; Geke Romijn; Ellen M A Smets; Eugene F Loos; Marleen Kunneman; Julia C M van Weert
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2016-07-25       Impact factor: 5.428

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.