This special collection ‘Looking Beyond the Numbers: Qualitative research in
Respiratory Medicine’ celebrates research using qualitative
methodologies to enable understanding of an individuals’ subjective experience and
to address questions about meaning, perspectives, feelings and values. The
qualitative researcher systematically gathers, organises, interprets and explains
data from narratives (verbal and textual) or naturalistic observations (visual).
Data collection techniques are tailored according to the research question. Focus
groups are useful to understand normative beliefs and behaviour (i.e. what are
peoples’ perceptions of e-cigarettes?), semi-structured interviews glean views on
focused topics (i.e. perceptions of the withdrawal of medications?), in-depth
interviews seek to comprehend a condition or experience (i.e. what is the experience
of adults with cystic fibrosis?) and analysis of text and documents, such as social
media posts and websites, shed light on public knowledge (i.e. how do people view
those with lung cancer?).[1]The robustness of qualitative research has been questioned due to concerns about
small sample sizes leading to lack of generalisability and biases linked to
researchers’ own experiences and expectations. However, seeking generalisability is
at odds with the focus of understanding a specific issue in a particular population
and context. The integrity of qualitative research can be defended by addressing
trustworthiness using quality criteria: credibility (the confidence in the truth of
the findings), transferability (the degree to which the results can be transferred
to other contexts), dependability (the stability of the results over time) and
confirmability (the degree to which the results can be confirmed by others).[2] Techniques to demonstrate trustworthiness may include triangulation of
findings, member checking, providing a rich account of the data and ensuring
transparency of findings by producing an audit trail.[3]
Informing clinical practice and behaviour change
Evidence derived using qualitative methods is cited in international guidelines for
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) informing clinical practice.[4] For example, studies seeking to understand the experience of living with
severe COPD have elucidated knowledge of patient needs leading to recommendations
for disease education and management of psychological symptoms.[5-7] Another study exploring perceptions on opioid use for refractory
breathlessness has offered insight into the likelihood of successful treatment
uptake. This information is particularly important when findings from quantitative
literature are conflicting, meaning no clear clinical recommendations can be made.[8] In this collection, a study using transparent expert consultation methods,
which draws on qualitative techniques (gathering views, transparency, analysis of
themes), has generated evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice, policy
and research, emphasising the need for patient-centred flexible care for people
living with chronic breathlessness in advanced disease.[9]Encouraging behaviour change is challenging but qualitative research may be helpful.
I have focused on disease management or pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programs as
examples of positive health behaviour to illustrate how and have cited examples from
this special collection as well as from the broader literature. In a recent study,
the narratives of patients with COPD who had declined a chronic management program
portrayed social challenges (i.e. poverty and debt) and personal beliefs reflecting
feelings of shame and distrust.[10] Awareness and understanding of factors influencing a persons’ readiness to
change behaviour can enable healthcare professionals (HCPs) to communicate in a way
that reflects compassion and understanding. As well as recognising the views of
those who do not engage in certain behaviours, it is important to glean insight from
those that do, for example, a proportion of patients chose to repeat PR, driven by a
desire to improve fitness, symptoms and confidence.[11] With this knowledge, HCPs can tailor the information they provide to patients
about an intervention or service, with the aim of influencing patients’ beliefs
about its appropriateness and increasing the likelihood of engagement.Qualitative exploration of patients’ treatment preferences can enable patient choice
and inform alternative modes of delivery. For example, varied views were expressed
by patients regarding the timing of PR post-acute exacerbation of COPD and some
preferred the idea of a gradual start,[12] meaning it may be appropriate to initially offer only education to a
proportion of patients before suggesting enrolment in comprehensive PR. By enabling
choice the program is more suited to patients’ needs, it is individualised and
patients’ sense of empowerment can be heightened by participation in shared
decision-making. It is also important to understand the potential benefits of
alternative choices and modes of PR. Qualitative researchers have sought
understanding of patients’ experiences participating in home-based PR finding it to
be the most appropriate for those who value convenience and have strong social support.[13] This information can assist HCPs to support patients making informed choices,
potentially improving access to PR.
Conclusions
Qualitative research methods address relevant questions related to patients’ disease
experience and are applied in ways that support the trustworthiness of the research.
This special collection promotes well-conducted qualitative research, which has an
important role in informing clinical recommendations. It can facilitate effective
communication that reflects compassion and understanding, enabling HCPs to offer
informed treatment choices and support shared decision-making. Adoption of these
approaches can heighten feelings of self-worth, trust and empowerment, which are
necessary for engaging in positive health behaviour.
Authors: Dave Singh; Alvar Agusti; Antonio Anzueto; Peter J Barnes; Jean Bourbeau; Bartolome R Celli; Gerard J Criner; Peter Frith; David M G Halpin; Meilan Han; M Victorina López Varela; Fernando Martinez; Maria Montes de Oca; Alberto Papi; Ian D Pavord; Nicolas Roche; Donald D Sin; Robert Stockley; Jørgen Vestbo; Jadwiga A Wedzicha; Claus Vogelmeier Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2019-05-18 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Rebecca T Disler; Anna Green; Tim Luckett; Phillip J Newton; Sally Inglis; David C Currow; Patricia M Davidson Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2014-04-26 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Tania Janaudis-Ferreira; Catherine M Tansey; Samantha L Harrison; Cecile Elisabeth Beaurepaire; Donna Goodridge; Jean Bourbeau; Marcel Baltzan Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2019-09
Authors: Hilary Pinnock; Marilyn Kendall; Scott A Murray; Allison Worth; Pamela Levack; Mike Porter; William MacNee; Aziz Sheikh Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-01-24
Authors: Lisa Jane Brighton; India Tunnard; Morag Farquhar; Sara Booth; Sophie Miller; Deokhee Yi; Wei Gao; Sabrina Bajwah; William Dc Man; Charles C Reilly; Margaret Ogden; Sylvia Bailey; Colleen Ewart; Irene J Higginson; Matthew Maddocks Journal: Chron Respir Dis Date: 2019 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 2.444
Authors: Aroub Lahham; Christine F McDonald; Ajay Mahal; Annemarie L Lee; Catherine J Hill; Angela T Burge; Narelle S Cox; Rosemary Moore; Caroline Nicolson; Paul O'Halloran; Rebecca Gillies; Anne E Holland Journal: Chron Respir Dis Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 2.444