Critical evaluation of methodology in "Experiences of insomnia among older people living in nursing homes a qualitative study".

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Milad Kazemi Najm, Nasrin Imanifar
{"title":"Critical evaluation of methodology in \"Experiences of insomnia among older people living in nursing homes a qualitative study\".","authors":"Milad Kazemi Najm, Nasrin Imanifar","doi":"10.1080/17482631.2025.2522442","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This letter critically evaluates the methodology of Eva Hjort Telhede's qualitative study exploring insomnia experiences among nursing homes. While the study contributes valuable insights into subjective sleep challenges, its methodological rigour warrants scrutiny to inform future research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study employed a qualitative descriptive design with semi-structured interviews (<i>n</i> = 19 participants) and inductive content analysis. Data collection occurred in nine Swedish nursing homes, with purposive sampling based on insomnia criteria (ICD-10) and cognitive competence (S-MMSE ≥20). Analysis followed Graneheim and Lundman's qualitative content analysis framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Key methodological strengths included purposive sampling, data saturation, and reflexive practices. Limitations identified were single-researcher bias, lack of intercoder reliability checks, gender imbalance (4 men, 15 women), and exclusion of variables such as cognitive diagnoses and medication use. Environmental factors (e.g. noise and lighting) were self-reported without objective validation, and contextual transferability was constrained by limited demographic diversity.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The reliance on a single coder and absence of triangulation may compromise the depth of thematic analysis. Recommendations include: (1) multi-researcher collaboration to enhance credibility; (2) inclusive sampling of residents with dementia; (3) mixed-methods designs integrating objective sleep measures; and (4) staff training in sleep hygiene to address institutional barriers. Strengthening methodological transparency and addressing contextual factors could improve future interventions for insomnia in nursing homes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51468,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being","volume":"20 1","pages":"2522442"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12207777/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2025.2522442","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This letter critically evaluates the methodology of Eva Hjort Telhede's qualitative study exploring insomnia experiences among nursing homes. While the study contributes valuable insights into subjective sleep challenges, its methodological rigour warrants scrutiny to inform future research.

Methods: The study employed a qualitative descriptive design with semi-structured interviews (n = 19 participants) and inductive content analysis. Data collection occurred in nine Swedish nursing homes, with purposive sampling based on insomnia criteria (ICD-10) and cognitive competence (S-MMSE ≥20). Analysis followed Graneheim and Lundman's qualitative content analysis framework.

Results: Key methodological strengths included purposive sampling, data saturation, and reflexive practices. Limitations identified were single-researcher bias, lack of intercoder reliability checks, gender imbalance (4 men, 15 women), and exclusion of variables such as cognitive diagnoses and medication use. Environmental factors (e.g. noise and lighting) were self-reported without objective validation, and contextual transferability was constrained by limited demographic diversity.

Discussion: The reliance on a single coder and absence of triangulation may compromise the depth of thematic analysis. Recommendations include: (1) multi-researcher collaboration to enhance credibility; (2) inclusive sampling of residents with dementia; (3) mixed-methods designs integrating objective sleep measures; and (4) staff training in sleep hygiene to address institutional barriers. Strengthening methodological transparency and addressing contextual factors could improve future interventions for insomnia in nursing homes.

对“在养老院生活的老年人失眠的经历:一项定性研究”中的方法论进行批判性评价。
引言:这封信批判性地评估了Eva Hjort Telhede的定性研究方法,探讨了养老院中失眠的经历。虽然这项研究为主观睡眠挑战提供了有价值的见解,但其严谨的方法值得仔细审查,以为未来的研究提供信息。方法:采用半结构化访谈和归纳性内容分析相结合的定性描述设计。数据收集在9家瑞典养老院进行,基于失眠标准(ICD-10)和认知能力(S-MMSE≥20)进行有目的抽样。分析遵循Graneheim和Lundman的定性内容分析框架。结果:主要的方法优势包括有目的的抽样、数据饱和和反身性实践。发现的限制是单个研究者的偏倚,缺乏编码者之间的可靠性检查,性别失衡(4名男性,15名女性),以及排除了认知诊断和药物使用等变量。环境因素(如噪音和照明)是在没有客观验证的情况下自我报告的,背景可转移性受到有限的人口多样性的限制。讨论:对单一编码器的依赖和三角测量的缺失可能会影响主题分析的深度。建议包括:(1)多研究员合作提高可信度;(2)对痴呆居民进行包容性抽样;(3)综合客观睡眠测量的混合方法设计;(4)对员工进行睡眠卫生培训,解决制度障碍。加强方法的透明度和解决环境因素可以改善未来对养老院失眠的干预。
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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.60%
发文量
99
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being acknowledges the international and interdisciplinary nature of health-related issues. It intends to provide a meeting-point for studies using rigorous qualitative methodology of significance for issues related to human health and well-being. The aim of the International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being is to support and to shape the emerging field of qualitative studies and to encourage a better understanding of all aspects of human health and well-being.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信