Burden from Study Questionnaire on Patient Fatigue in Qualitative Congestive Heart Failure Research

P. Iyngkaran, Wania Usmani, Zahra Bahmani, Fahad Hanna
{"title":"Burden from Study Questionnaire on Patient Fatigue in Qualitative Congestive Heart Failure Research","authors":"P. Iyngkaran, Wania Usmani, Zahra Bahmani, Fahad Hanna","doi":"10.3390/jcdd11040096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mixed methods research forms the backbone of translational research methodologies. Qualitative research and subjective data lead to hypothesis generation and ideas that are then proven via quantitative methodologies and gathering objective data. In this vein, clinical trials that generate subjective data may have limitations, when they are not followed through with quantitative data, in terms of their ability to be considered gold standard evidence and inform guidelines and clinical management. However, since many research methods utilise qualitative tools, an initial factor is that such tools can create a burden on patients and researchers. In addition, the quantity of data and its storage contributes to noise and quality issues for its primary and post hoc use. This paper discusses the issue of the burden of subjective data collected and fatigue in the context of congestive heart failure (CHF) research. The CHF population has a high baseline morbidity, so no doubt the focus should be on the content; however, the lengths of the instruments are a product of their vigorous validation processes. Nonetheless, as an important source of hypothesis generation, if a choice of follow-up qualitative assessment is required for a clinical trial, shorter versions of the questionnaire should be used, without compromising the data collection requirements; otherwise, we need to invest in this area and find suitable solutions","PeriodicalId":502527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease","volume":" 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11040096","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mixed methods research forms the backbone of translational research methodologies. Qualitative research and subjective data lead to hypothesis generation and ideas that are then proven via quantitative methodologies and gathering objective data. In this vein, clinical trials that generate subjective data may have limitations, when they are not followed through with quantitative data, in terms of their ability to be considered gold standard evidence and inform guidelines and clinical management. However, since many research methods utilise qualitative tools, an initial factor is that such tools can create a burden on patients and researchers. In addition, the quantity of data and its storage contributes to noise and quality issues for its primary and post hoc use. This paper discusses the issue of the burden of subjective data collected and fatigue in the context of congestive heart failure (CHF) research. The CHF population has a high baseline morbidity, so no doubt the focus should be on the content; however, the lengths of the instruments are a product of their vigorous validation processes. Nonetheless, as an important source of hypothesis generation, if a choice of follow-up qualitative assessment is required for a clinical trial, shorter versions of the questionnaire should be used, without compromising the data collection requirements; otherwise, we need to invest in this area and find suitable solutions
充血性心力衰竭定性研究中关于患者疲劳的研究问卷所带来的负担
混合方法研究是转化研究方法的支柱。定性研究和主观数据会产生假设和想法,然后通过定量方法和收集客观数据加以证明。因此,产生主观数据的临床试验在没有定量数据跟进的情况下,可能会有局限性,无法被视为黄金标准证据,也无法为指南和临床管理提供依据。然而,由于许多研究方法都使用定性工具,因此最初的一个因素是这些工具可能会给患者和研究人员造成负担。此外,数据的数量和存储也会产生噪音,并对数据的初次使用和事后使用造成质量问题。本文以充血性心力衰竭(CHF)研究为背景,讨论了主观数据收集和疲劳的负担问题。充血性心力衰竭人群的基线发病率较高,因此毫无疑问,重点应放在内容上;然而,工具的长度是其严格验证过程的产物。尽管如此,作为产生假设的一个重要来源,如果临床试验需要选择后续定性评估,则应在不影响数据收集要求的情况下使用较短版本的问卷;否则,我们需要在这一领域进行投资,并找到合适的解决方案
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信