Quantitative/Qualitative Comparison Analysis Paper

Hypertension, or high blood pressure, is a condition that poses many health risks and is often associated with serious cardiovascular complications when not properly controlled. The other big part of hypertension management is compliance with medications, but non-compliance is widespread and adds to the poor state of health. Some studies have indicated that regular blood pressure monitoring might raise adherence to antihypertensive medications, meaning the practices should be incorporated into treatment plans: Quantitative/Qualitative Comparison Analysis Paper.

This paper will present quantitative and qualitative research approaches to determine the impact of regular blood pressure monitoring on medication compliance of hypertensive patients. Through such a comparison, this analysis will show how each approach contributes to an all-encompassing perspective of this phenomenon to support evidence-based practices within the role of Advanced Practice Nurses in hypertension care.

Comparing Quantitative and Qualitative Research

Quantitative and qualitative research methods serve different approaches in exploring clinical questions and evidence-based practice guidance. Quantitative research involves numerical data collection and, through analysis and interpretation, evaluates patterns, trends, and relationships among variables (Barroga & Matanguihan, 2022). It often employs controlled trials, surveys, or systematic reviews to measure the effect of interventions and is, therefore, appropriate for questions of efficacy and outcomes. In the case of hypertension and medication adherence studies, quantitative methods enable researchers to measure variables related to how often individuals take their blood pressure, adherence rates, or even health complications, which are measurable in the assessment of intervention success.

On the contrary, qualitative research attempts to understand experiences, perceptions, and motivations behind certain behaviors through narrative data. It is the methodology used to explore people’s lived experiences and to gain insight into those complex and subjective elements of health behaviors. For example, in hypertension studies, qualitative research would center on either the barriers patients experience in adhering to regular monitoring or their perceptions of the medication and the role of the Advanced Practice Nurses in promoting compliance.

Typical data collection methods in qualitative research would include interviews or focus groups, followed by thematic or content analysis that allows for identifying themes related to patient behavior and adherence, as indicated by Tenny et al. (2022). The two study approaches, therefore, complement each other in significant ways: the quantitative research takes measurements of adherence rates and health outcomes; the qualitative research puts these outcomes into context with patients’ everyday experiences and challenges.

Connecting POI to Literature

Based on the regular blood pressure monitoring analysis on medication adherence in patients with hypertension, the following findings derived quantitative and qualitative data, which help assert the validity of the clinical question and the PICO framework. Several quantitative works have demonstrated statistically from the findings that patients who routinely measure their blood pressure will experience a higher level of prescribed medicine compliance, better blood pressure control, and fewer cardiovascular incidences than those who do not –a factor highlighted in the work of Trefond et al., 2022. In combination, such studies contribute far more to evidentiary support for clinical guidelines that call for monitoring hypertension by taking measurements to comply with the practice.

Uniquely, qualitative observations facilitate the identification of patients’ perceptions and potential or probable facilitators and barriers to continuous follow-up. For instance, understanding how patients perceive self-monitoring calls to attention the ability of the APN to modify education and support, something that Trefond et al. (2022) argued could help enhance compliance levels. This evidence strengthens the prior quantitative results by presenting the contextualized issues that patients experience and how APNs can manage those barriers using patient-centered care approaches. These studies collectively indicate the value of monitoring and suggest that routine adherence monitoring enhances a comprehensive practice approach by APNs in hypertensive management.

Quantitative Meta-Analysis/Systematic Review Critique

This paper will review a quantitative meta-analysis to establish the effect of regular blood pressure monitoring on medication adherence among patients diagnosed with hypertension. It included 12 studies in the sample size with a combination of randomized controlled trials and observational studies focusing on outcomes regarding adherence.

In this meta-analysis, inclusion criteria have ensured that the dataset is well defined and focuses on studies with adult hypertensive patients engaged in regular monitoring interventions and measurement of measurable adherence outcomes. Most of the included studies have suitable methodologies with adequate sample sizes, increasing the validity and reliability of the results to a level where the conclusions drawn from this meta-analysis have broad generalization potential and are applicable beyond the study settings to represent similar patient populations.

Methodological rigor was maintained in this meta-analysis by systematic data collection and statistical synthesis. The meta-analysis allowed the trends to be assessed and a significant relationship to be established between regular monitoring and adherence outcomes through the aggregation of data from multiple studies. This methodical technique increased the validity of the meta-analysis by ensuring similar data measures across studies.

Statistical synthesis facilitated an analysis of how routine monitoring affects adherence by quantifying the observed consequences in investigations of various designs. Besides, meta-analysis as a methodology ensures that the particular limitations of a given study do not prevent it from providing a better basis for evidence than one hopes could be built for a single devised study.

Consequently, the high dependability of this meta-analysis’s conclusions is one of its main advantages. Numerous investigations with comparable techniques were included to guarantee that the findings may be repeated in comparable settings. For example, each RCT included consistent monitoring protocols, allowing for meaningful cross-comparisons in adherence outcomes.

Furthermore, the included observational studies complemented the RCTs by showing information to real-world adherence behaviors, which are most likely to differ from experimental conditions. The combination of RCTs and observational studies permitted a wider range of evidence to be drawn by meta-analysis to improve the reliability of the findings. This heterogeneity in study design also added another dimension to the understanding of how this intervention monitoring could work differently within various healthcare settings, ranging from outpatient clinics to primary care facilities.

Besides, the level of evidence of this meta-analysis was high, as it was exclusively based on RCTs, which are considered the gold standard in establishing a causal relationship in clinical research. Causal inference using RCT results is strong since random assignments reduce the risk of confounding factors that might affect adherence outcomes. This high rating of evidence strengthens the clinical applicability of the findings since health providers can now be even more confident when recommending regular monitoring as an effective intervention to improve adherence.

However, the level of evidence could be improved by including more recent studies that reflect new technological advances, particularly in mobile health applications. With the increasing use of mHealth tools, integrating them into blood pressure monitoring may result in even higher adherence rates, indicating a fruitful area for further research.

These meta-analysis results are directly applicable in clinical practice, especially for the Advanced Practice Nurse (APN) whose patients are hypertensive. The meta-analysis results provide a high level of evidence for their inclusion in the standard of care for hypertension management because this leads to significant increases in regular monitoring.

These outcomes support the critical engagement of APNs to increase the patients ‘awareness of and assist them in developing a plan to adhere to regular monitoring, as noted by Bhattad and Pacifico (2022). Analysis of different data from the meta-analysis shows that medication adherence strategies have a very high potential for APNs’ effectiveness, which can enhance patients’ health outcomes and minimize the probability of complications caused by hypertension as indicated by Ordóñez‐Piedra et al. (2021).

This meta-analysis describes the rationale for routine monitoring because small changes in blood pressure should lead to a change in medication. For example, identifying patterns of adherence and blood pressure control allows APNs to take proactive measures to stop the deterioration of complications due to hypertension in its tracks. This is, again, in line with evidence-based practice since the best available data guide decisions.

Qualitative Single Study Critique

The qualitative study investigates patients’ views about regular blood pressure monitoring and how these views influence their medication adherence. The study’s main aim was to gain an in-depth understanding of patients’ experiences and barriers when adhering to a regular monitoring routine. The study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators enabling healthcare interventions to improve medication adherence and promote long-term hypertension management practices.

Consequently, this study was conducted with a sample of 20 hypertensive patients; it was considered sufficient based on data saturation. Data saturation is reached when no new themes can be identified through analysis. Hence, the sample size was adequate to ensure that a wide range of patient experiences in relation to adherence could be collected.

The sample for the research was selected with due care to reflect the heterogeneity of the hypertensive population, including patients with different socioeconomic backgrounds, of various ages, and at various stages in the management of hypertension. Heterogeneous sampling merely strengthened the external validity of the research in healthcare settings related to it, as it is true that some impressions were made that could be applicable to many patients within various types of hypertensive patients with similar nonadherence issues.

The most widely incorporated method during the interpretation process was thematic analysis. As Kiger and Varpio argued (2020), it offers the researchers a chance to bring out essential patterns that usually emerge in participants’ accounts. It involved a categorization process that codecs all the statements made by the participants, looking for the pattern to give an understanding of the patient’s attitudes, difficulties, and encouragements regarding compliance with medication.

From the conversations, it is possible to identify the themes: the perceived hassle of frequent checks, the focus on healthcare care, and motivation connected with consistent reporting and blood pressure results. For example, the perceived burden mentioned such psychological and practical difficulties associated with frequent monitoring, as patients worry about receiving low results and difficulty fitting monitoring activities into their daily schedules.

In a technical sense, the study was highly credible due to member checking: it ensured that interpretations of the informants’ statements were presented for review and feedback to ensure the findings truly represented their experiences and views. By so doing, the threat of researcher bias was negated significantly; again, participants could attest that their voices were represented through the findings.

Confirmability is also demonstrated with the compulsive documentation of every step in the analytical process, enabling a researcher to trace the study’s decision-making and verify the rigor of the thematic analysis. Transparency in methodology can only strengthen the reliability of the study by ensuring that the findings reflect actual participant data rather than representing an example of subjective interpretation.

Another outstanding aspect of this study is its reliability. The researchers ensured that data collection and analysis processes were conducted consistently; hence, similar research can replicate the same procedures. The study’s findings have high transferability, given that adherence challenges in hypertensive patients are common issues faced universally by such patients.

For instance, the study’s results regarding feedback on motivational effects could be applied in any health context where healthcare professionals try to promote patient adherence. This transferability will allow the APNs and all the other healthcare professionals to consult such knowledge, hence devising patient-centered interventions that can be adapted to suit different clinical contexts.

The themes elicited from this study have given insight into specific factors that influence adherence, including the role of healthcare providers in offering support and motivation through consistent feedback. Participants mentioned that it was essential to have the health provider explain the monitoring process, guide them through it, and reassure them about the results. This theme puts forward the role of APNs in providing technical guidance and emotional support to patients (Boehning & Punsalan, 2023).

The findings also underlined the importance of feedback as a motivating factor, where participants described how regular feedback on blood pressure readings sustained their commitment to monitoring and medication adherence. By understanding these motivational factors, APNs can be more skilled in providing patient education that addresses both the practical and emotional aspects of adherence to improve health outcomes.

Evidence was rated as good, mainly due to the robust data analysis procedures followed in the study and the appropriate use of member checking to enhance the dependability of its findings. The transferability and confirmability of the study were further strengths that raised its quality rating, allowing other clinicians and researchers to apply the gained insights to similar contexts. Although in many traditional hierarchies of evidence, qualitative studies would fall below those that are quantitative, the robust methodology of this study and its pertinence to practical hypertension management make it an invaluable resource for clinical practice.

Considering Risks and Ethics

The ethical issues most likely to arise during the implementation of practice change regarding regular blood pressure monitoring for hypertensive patients include those touching on patient privacy and informed consent. Some ethical concerns that can arise relate to patients’ confidentiality when dealing with health data from home monitoring devices (Tariq & Hackert, 2023). Much of this could be minimized if the monitoring devices conformed to data security standards and information was given to patients regarding the storage and use of their data.

Another ethical issue in this respect is the equal right of access to the monitoring facilities, as it was suggested by Cohen et al. (2020) that people from poor backgrounds may be disadvantaged regarding home devices. APNs can act in this area by promoting mainly affordable or subsidized rates for monitoring along with resources to support adherence in underserved communities. With the mitigation of these ethical issues, APNs will be even more supportive of patient-centered care that embraces respect for the patient’s rights, builds trust, and supports equitable health care to advance the causes of improvement in medication compliance among patients with hypertension.

Conclusion

All types of research present considerable insights into promoting routine blood pressure checks of boosting medical adherence among patients with high blood pressure. Scholarly studies have established that compliance rises with schedule; thus, arithmetical results ground this intervention. In quantitative, and when they conduct such an elaborate study, they get patients’ impressions, journeys, and hurdles, which makes patients’ fixation within the advanced practice nurses ad licking tactic approach that the advanced practice nurses can embrace in making the patients adhere to PPM.

Integrating results from these two methods of inquiry bolsters the rigor of the findings and the evidence base supporting monitoring in hypertension populations. Hence, APNs will enhance the positive patient health outcomes concerning complications prevented or treated for chronic diseases by incorporating ethical principles into their practice and fair access to surveillance devices.

References

Barroga, E., & Matanguihan, G. J. (2022). A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research Questions and Hypotheses in Scholarly Articles. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 37(16). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9039193/

Bhattad, P. B., & Pacifico, L. (2022). Empowering patients: Promoting Patient Education and Health Literacy. Cureus, 14(7). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.27336

Boehning, A. P., & Punsalan, L. D. (2023, March 1). Advanced Practice Nurse Roles. PubMed; StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK589698/

Cohen, I. G., Gerke, S., & Kramer, D. B. (2020). Ethical and Legal Implications of Remote Monitoring of Medical Devices. The Milbank Quarterly, 98(4), 1257–1289. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12481

Kiger, M. E., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data. Medical Teacher, 42(8), 846–854. Tandfonline. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030

Ordóñez‐Piedra, J., Ponce‐Blandón, J. A., Robles‐Romero, J. M., Gómez‐Salgado, J., Jiménez‐Picón, N., & Romero‐Martín, M. (2021). Effectiveness of the Advanced Practice Nursing interventions in the patient with heart failure: A systematic review. Nursing Open, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.847

Tariq, R. A., & Hackert, P. B. (2023, January 23). Patient confidentiality. National Library of Medicine; StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519540/

Tenny, S., Brannan, J., & Brannan, G. (2022, September 18). Qualitative Study. National Library of Medicine; StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470395/

Trefond, J., Hermet, L., Lambert, C., Vaillant-Roussel, H., Pouchain, D., Ménini, T., Pereira, B., & Vorilhon, P. (2022). Home blood pressure monitoring and adherence in patients with hypertension on primary prevention treatment: a survey of 1026 patients in general medicine in the Auvergne region. BMC Primary Care, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01725-8

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Directions for Quantitative/Qualitative Comparison Analysis Paper

Please read through these step by step directions for a better understanding of the assignment. At the end you will see a video presentation going over the rubric and how to submit.

Approximate lengths of each section outlined below.

Step 1: Introduction

Write an introduction to the topic and end the paragraph with a thesis statement. The introduction should include 2-3 attention grabbing statements and end with 1 concise thesis statement that describes the overall purpose of your paper.

Step 2: Comparing Quantitative and Qualitative Research

Students should provide a robust discussion on the differences between quantitative and qualitative research. This discussion should also include key characteristics of both types of research and the data collection processes of each that make them unique to one another. To address this topic more thoroughly consider the following questions:

1. how is data classified ?
2. how is data collected?
3. how is data analyzed?
4. how do the studies differ?

Peer reviewed and/or textbooks should support this discussion. This section should be 1-2 paragraphs.

Step 3: Connecting your POI to the Literature 

In this section, you should be considering the results and clinical implications from both studies; quantitative meta-analysis and/or systematic review and qualitative single study. How do they support your PICO clinical question/POI? For this discussion, you should include the actual outcome you outlined in your PICO/clinical question. Then consider/describe how the results and data collected contribute to practice supporting that outcome measures? Consider the scope of the Advanced Practice Nurse role throughout your discussion. This section should be 1-2 paragraphs and include peer reviewed and/or textbooks to support this discussion.

Step 4:  Appraisal Tools and Studies

While this section serves as the next step in the paper, you will not be writing anything in the paper for this section. Instead, you will need to submit your 2 completed appraisal tools; one on the quantitative meta-analysis and/or systematic review and one on your qualitative single study. Then be sure to also submit both of these studies along  with your assignment. So in total you should 5 documents submitted into the assignment area: paper; 2 tools; 2 studies. Please label with your name and document type, i.e. McMullan T Final Paper; McMullan T Single Study

When completing the tools; be sure that you watch the video on how to complete the tools and are addressing each question that corresponds to that section of the tool. Use this box below to help you determine your options for correctly selecting your comparison studies. If you have questions, you should ask your primary faculty. Keep in mind that faculty will not pre-approve your studies, so please do not send them for approval, instead ask questions for understanding.

Quantitative/Qualitative Study Selection Options
You must choose one (1) QUANTITATIVE study from this category (column):	You must choose one (1) QUALTITATIVE, Single study from this category (column):	DO NOT USE any from this column:
Meta-analysis	Ethnography	Quality Improvement study/project
Systematic Review	Phenomenology	Literature reviews
Meta-analysis & Systematic Review combined	Grounded theory	Scoping Reviews
Mixed methods Systematic Review	Mixed Single Study	Integrative Reviews
	Participatory Action Research	Umbrella Reviews
	Historical Studies	Linear Regressions
	Action Research	Animal Studies
		Implementation Strategies
		Case studies although qualitative do not work well-do not use

 

• Use this tool to complete the appraisals for both qualitative studies separately. Attach the completed tool to your paper or with your assignment.  Use the link below to complete. You can save the document as a pdf, use the edit function to fill in or handwrite and scan back into the assignment area.
  Appraisal Tool pdf   or Download Appraisal Tool pdf   or 
• Microsoft word version Download Microsoft word version Microsoft word version   Download Microsoft word version  
• Follow all steps carefully as the tool will guide you which steps to move to in each section of the tool.
• For help on how to complete the tool, watch this video: “How to Complete the Appraisal”Links to an external site.

Step 5: Quantitative Meta-analysis and/or Systematic Review Discussion/Critique

In this section of the paper, you will discussing the appraisal completed from the tool and elaborating on the following areas in athorough, detailed discussion. Please describe each of the following criterions:

1. purpose and findings
2. how participants or sample of studies were selected; was a sufficient sample of participants or studies met, why or why not? Be sure to specify how many studies and what types of study designs were included. You may also include how many participants were selected, why is this significant. What was the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Support with evidence from the study.
3. methodology and data collection; how does this influence the validity and reliability of findings? Review the methods and data collections sections of the study and include how you came to the conclusion that the findings are valid and reliable-support with evidence. You must distinguish both from one another to show understanding.
4. identify the level of evidence and significance of rating. Could the level have been higher if different criteria was used in their selection process? What influence does the inclusion/exclusion criteria have on the level of evidence?
5. support for using in practice based on quality rating; if you do not support use in practice, explain why.

All answers should be fully supported from information in the study. Discussions should be detailed and robust demonstrating a full understanding of the content. This section serves as a critical component to demonstrate understanding of the appraisal process and therefore should be one of the longer sections of the paper. It is expected to be 1-2 pages in length.

Step 6: Qualitative Single Study Article Discussion/Critique

In this section of the paper, you will discussing the appraisal completed from the tool and elaborating on the following areas in a thorough, detailed discussion. Please describe each of the following criterions as it relates to your POI:

1. purpose or new insights discovered
2. participant sample; include when data saturation or other criteria was used to determine the number of participants needed for participant selection, was it enough? How do you know that it was enough, not enough? Provide evidence to support your answer.
3. how was data interpreted? Provide details from the study on the data collection process and explain credibility, strengths, and weaknesses of the data collection process.
4. how were themes generated? Was the concept of confirmability, a measure of trustworthiness or neutrality met in this process? Were there new insights or a better understanding of the phenomenon-describe how this is met/unmet
5. support your level of evidence and quality rating, justify your answer and include concepts of dependability and transferability

All answers should be fully supported from information in the study. Discussions should be detailed and robust demonstrating a full understanding of the content. This section serves as a critical component to demonstrate understanding of the appraisal process and therefore should be one of the longer sections of the paper. It is expected to be 1-2 pages in length.

Step 7: Considering Risks and Ethics 

Now that you have reviewed different types of research to support practice changes, you must think about how the impact of change might effect others. Are there any risks of ethical concerns? How will you ensure protection of participants. What processes will you put in place to support ethical conduct in practice? Consider the various types of ethical concerns and discuss how you will mitigate these risks and concerns. Is there any potential benefit or harm to your population? Include findings from your quantitative, qualitative studies and guideline or position statement as support in your answers.

To fully address this section you will choose from either option (a) or option (b) and address either:

(a) potential risks (i.e., psychological, loss of confidentiality, social, economic, or other). How will you mitigate the potential risks?

OR

(b) ethical concerns (i.e., vulnerable populations, patient rights, equity, anonymity, safety, conflict of interest, informed consent, or other). How will you mitigate the ethical concerns?

Additional support from textbooks and/or APA peer reviewed resources should be included. This section should be 2-3 paragraphs.

Step 8: Conclusion

Provide a conclusion paragraph to the paper summarizing all main points. A conclusion should NOT state any new information that was not previously addressed in the paper. While it can re-state the purpose of your writing, it should not repeat the thesis verbatim. Additionally, it should summarize the main points of each section.

Step 9: Turnitin 

Be sure to review the Turnitin similarity report generated after uploading the paper into the assignment. Upload the paper separately from the tools and articles (not merged together). The tools and articles will generate a very high Turnitin similarity percentage- which is expected.Faculty will view your similarity report upon submission. You are expected to view the report for similarity and make any necessary changes, then re-submit the paper prior to the due date. Be sure to submit all 5 documents to the submission area by the due date. Label all documents with your name and assignment type, i.e. Davis A Final Paper; Davis A Single study

See Rubric for specific Scholarship deductions.

Page limit: 8 pages, excluding title page and references

References: you must include at least 2 additional peer reviewed references (not including text books) and in addition to your apprasial studies. Therefore, you should have a minimum of 5 references (2 studies), 2 additional peer reviewed studies, and a text book.

All References should be current, no older than 5 years.

To see the rubric, go the next section of the Module and click on the rubric link.