I need tow separate replies on this discussion

I need tow separate replies on this discussion

1-Balancing Research Design Perspectives in Studying Pain and Quality of Life in Advanced Cancer Patients

The ongoing debate within our interprofessional team regarding the research design for our study, which investigates the connection between the perception of pain severity and the quality of life in advanced cancer patients, hinges on our research approach and objectives (Park et al., 2017). This dispute highlights the importance of finding a harmonious balance between different viewpoints to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of our study.

On one hand, the cross-sectional design argument is based on the idea that we are gathering data at a specific point in time. Our objective is to collect current data on the level of pain and quality of life experienced by patients with advanced cancer, without implementing any particular interventions. In essence, what we’re doing is snapping a picture of their perspectives and experiences. The aforementioned approach is consistent with the conventional cross-sectional methodology, which offers a full perspective of the studied variables at a specific time (Wang & Cheng, 2020).

However, proponents of the quasi-experimental method point out that our research incorporates particular hypotheses meant to look into the relationship between pain severity and quality of life. A quasi-experimental approach lets us control some factors, but it cannot offer the same level of control as a real experimental investigation. In our situation, we may offer pain management treatments to a subset of patients before evaluating how well they fared in comparison to a control group. Using this method helps us identify causality more accurately (Maciejewski, 2020).

We need to use aspects from both design styles to close this gap. first, we would collect cross-sectional data to determine the present level of pain severity and quality of life among patients with advanced cancer. We may also simultaneously implement targeted interventions for some patients, gathering data both before and after the intervention to provide a more complete picture.

It is imperative that our study include an interprofessional team. With nurses offering clinical insights and patient experience understanding, and other healthcare professionals contributing statistics and research method skills, this diversified group offers a wide variety of expertise. This multidisciplinary approach yields an extensive study that improves the validity of our conclusions and the practical applicability of our research, ultimately improving the care and quality of life for patients with advanced cancer.

References

Park, S. A., Chung, S. H., & Lee, Y. (2017). Factors influencing the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer. Applied Nursing Research, 33, 108-112.

Maciejewski, M. L. (2020). Quasi-experimental design. Biostatistics & Epidemiology, 4(1), 38-47.

Wang, X., & Cheng, Z. (2020). Cross-sectional studies: strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Chest, 158(1), S65-S7

2-The colleagues who think it’s a cross-sectional design might believe this because it’s a one-time collection of data and not an actual observed experiment. They would argue that we are only able to look at the perception of pain and quality of life at one point in the subjects’ lives and that it does not allow for testing suggested hypotheses. This approach might be beneficial in providing a general view of the variables’ effects and measuring the prevalence of these conditions.

The colleagues who think it’s quasi-experimental see it a different way. They would highlight that we have specific hypotheses, which means we may be inclined to manipulate variables in a controlled way to test the hypotheses. This can provide for establishing causal relationships between the variables, and to test certain interventions and observe how they would influence the results. It also allows us to address differences in the subjects’ personal conditions. This is more of an experiment rather than just an observation of the natural conditions.

To resolve the differences, we should discuss the purpose of the study and how we would like the design to serve us. We need to agree on whether we’re primarily observing the conditions as they are, or actively manipulating variables of the study to test our hypotheses. The goal should be to acknowledge different opinions and find common ground in order to establish a specific research approach.

Having an interprofessional team in this study is crucial because each member of the team will contribute a unique perspective related to their own past experiences. The optimal team would involve professionals who have the knowledge and expertise related to every aspect of the study. Healthcare professionals, nurse researchers, and other staff involved in caring for cancer patients will offer valuable insights. This collaboration will ensure a well-designed study and more efficient results.

References:

LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2018). Nursing research: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice (9th ed.). Elsevier.