			Home About us Contact

Qualitative Work (qualitative + work)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	50%
Humanities and Social Sciences	50%

Selected Abstracts

,It'll never happen to me': understanding public awareness of local flood risk

DISASTERS, Issue 2 2008
Kate Burningham
Following the severe flood events of 1998 and 2000, the United Kingdom's Environment Agency prioritised the need to increase public flood risk awareness. Drawing on data collected during research undertaken for the Environment Agency, this paper contributes to understanding of one aspect of flood awareness: people's recognition that their property is in an area that is potentially at risk of flooding. Quantitative analyses indicate that class is the most influential factor in predicting flood risk awareness, followed by flood experience and length of time in residence. There are also significant area differences. Our qualitative work explores how those defined as ,at risk' account for their lack of awareness or concern about their risk status. We conclude that the problem is often not simply a lack of awareness, but rather, assessments of local risk based on experience that underestimate the impact of rare or extreme events. We underline the importance of engaging with local perspectives on risk and making local people part of ,awareness-raising' processes. [source]

A mixed-methods study of interprofessional learning of resuscitation skills

MEDICAL EDUCATION, Issue 9 2009
Paul Bradley
Objectives, This study aimed to identify the effects of interprofessional resuscitation skills teaching on medical and nursing students' attitudes, leadership, team-working and performance skills. Methods, Year 2 medical and nursing students learned resuscitation skills in uniprofessional or interprofessional settings, prior to undergoing observational ratings of video-recorded leadership, teamwork and skills performance and subsequent focus group interviews. The Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) was administered pre- and post-intervention and again 3,4 months later. Results, There was no significant difference between interprofessional and uniprofessional teams for leadership, team dynamics or resuscitation tasks performance. Gender, previous interprofessional learning experience, professional background and previous leadership experience had no significant effect. Interview analysis showed broad support for interprofessional education (IPE) matched to clinical reality with perceived benefits for teamwork, communication and improved understanding of roles and perspectives. Concerns included inappropriate role adoption, hierarchy issues, professional identity and the timing of IPE episodes. The RIPLS subscales for professional identity and team-working increased significantly post-intervention for interprofessional groups but returned to pre-test levels by 3,4 months. However, interviews showed interprofessional groups retained a ,residual positivity' towards IPE, more so than uniprofessional groups. Conclusions, An intervention based on common, relevant, shared learning outcomes set in a realistic educational context can work with students who have differing levels of previous IPE and skills training experience. Qualitatively, positive attitudes outlast quantitative changes measured using the RIPLS. Further quantitative and qualitative work is required to examine other domains of learning, the timing of interventions and impact on attitudes towards IPE. [source]

The methodological potential of focus groups in population geography

POPULATION, SPACE AND PLACE (PREVIOUSLY:-INT JOURNAL OF POPULATION GEOGRAPHY), Issue 2 2006
Emily Skop
Abstract Within population geography, the last decade has seen an explosion in qualitative work in terms of the types of work, the topics addressed, and the potential theoretical consequences. Yet focus groups have received less attention as an alternative method. This paper highlights the particular promises, challenges, and practicality of doing focus group research in population geography. I begin by addressing how this research method answers ongoing pleas within the subdiscipline for non-essentialist ways of thinking about taken-for-granted social categories and labels. I then outline two other promising outcomes of this method, including the potential for unique and spontaneous group interactions, and the potential for the empowerment of participants. I use the rest of the paper to provide a review of some of the methodological details of focus group research, with the idea of encouraging more population geographers to engage with this method. Throughout, I contend that focus groups have the capability to further our understanding of population processes, and to connect population geography research to ongoing debates within the broader discipline. Observations stem from an extensive review of existing focus group research, along with my own focus group research conducted with residents living in multiracial suburban communities. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Preferences for aspects of a dermatology consultation

BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY, Issue 2 2006
J. Coast
Summary Background, General practitioners with special interests (GPSIs) are increasingly being used to provide dermatology services in the U.K. Little is known about U.K. dermatology patient attitudes to proposed variations in secondary care service delivery or the values they attach to aspects of the care they receive. Objectives, To quantify preferences for different attributes of care within dermatology secondary care services. Methods, Attributes of care that are important to dermatology patients were derived using in-depth qualitative interviews with 19 patients at different points in the care pathway. A discrete choice experiment using ,best,worst scaling' was sent by post to 119 patients referred to secondary care dermatology services and suitable for GPSI care who had agreed to participate in research. Results, Four attributes were derived from the qualitative work: waiting, expertise, thorough care and convenience. For the discrete choice experiment, 99 patients returned questionnaires, 93 of which contained sufficient data for analysis. All attributes were found to be quantitatively important. The attribute of greatest importance was expertise of the doctor, while waiting time was of least importance. Respondents were willing to wait longer than the current 3 months maximum to receive care that was thorough, 2·1 months to see a team led by an expert and 1·3 months to attend a consultation that is easy to get to. Conclusions, Although the need to reduce outpatient waiting times is a key policy driver behind the expansion of GPSI services, this does not appear to be the most important issue for patients. The thoroughness with which the consultation is provided and the expertise of the clinician seen are higher priorities. [source]