QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN CARDIOLOGY: TO BE VIRTUOUS OR FAIL
https://doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2016-4-eng-195-197
Abstract
Qualitative research is an aristocracy among research methods. Being capable to reach the understanding of events so deep and individual that unattainable for quantification, it requires the same level of capacities from an investigator. In cardiology, biomedical in her origins, novel patient-centered paradigm demands new understanding of the relevance: the relation of scientific findings with clinical application, which, from this point of view, involves the person’s biopsychocultural wholeness. Essential controversy originates from the positivistic impossibility of generalization of qualitative findings, and their broadly assumed fallibility. The results of a study depend on the personality of researcher: the interpreter. If such personality, being invited to another person’s realm, is not enough virtuous, the results of research will be vain. This article focuses on the need and possibility of implementation qualitative research to cardiovascular science on the way to patientcentered paradigm of healthcare. Some argumentation provided, as some literary review of recent qualitative trials in cardiovascular field.
About the Author
E. O. Taratukhin
http://www.internist.pro
N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (RNRMU)
Russian Federation
Moscow
N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (RNRMU)
Russian Federation
Moscow
References
1. Kirchof P, Sipido KR, Cowie MR, et al. The continuum of personalized cardiovascular medicine: a position paper of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J, 2014; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu312.
2. People-Centred Health Care. Technical Papers. International Symposium on the Peoplecentred Health Care. WHO publications, 2008.
3. Pals RAS, Hansen UM, Johansen CB, et al. Making sense of a new technology in clinical practice: a qualitative study of patient and physician perspectives. BMC Health Services, 2015; doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1071-1.
4. Lambert-Kerzner A, Havranek EP, Plomondon ME, et al. Perspectives of patients on factors relating to adherence to post-acute coronary syndrome medical regimens. Pat Pref and Adher, 2015; 9: 1053-9.
5. McCann LM, Haughey SL, Parsons C, et al. A patient perspective of pharmacist prescibing: ‘crossing the specialisms — crossing the illnesses’. Helath Expect, 2015; 18(1): 58-68.
6. Virdee SK, Greenfield SM, Fletcher K, et al. Patients’ views about taking a polypill to manage cardiovascular risk: a qualitative study in primary care. Brit J of Gener Practice, 2015; 65(636): e447-e453.
7. Cho J, Trent A. Evaluating Qualitative Research / The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research Leavy P. (ed.).— Oxford University Press, 2014; 677-95.
8. Astin F, Horrocks J, Closs SJ. Managing lifestyle change to reduce coronary risk: a synthesis of qualitative research on peoples’ experiences. BMC Cardiovasc Disord, 2014; 14(1), art. No 96.
Review
For citations:
Taratukhin E.O. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN CARDIOLOGY: TO BE VIRTUOUS OR FAIL. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2016;(4-eng):195-197. https://doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2016-4-eng-195-197
Views:
672
Email this article 