Sample/Setting
The settings of a longitudinal field experiment are likely to be multiple, but a palliative clinic may be considered a central setting. The patients’ conditions and health will define the rest of the settings. The clinic (or several clinics) will provide the sample: at least 20 NPs. The sample size is explained by the aim of the research and feasibility considerations. In order to test the co-creation of possibilities (CP) introduced by Bergdahl, Benzein, Ternestedt, Elmberger, and Andershed (2013), the number of NPs in both groups (CP and control) needs to be roughly equal and sufficient to make a generalization possible. However, since the NPs are going to use CP with a number of patients, every new NP increases the amount of data to be processed significantly. Therefore, if it is feasible to increase the sample size (given the funding), it should be done. Still, the proposed sample should be enough to make generalizations about the effectiveness of CP within the practice of one NP (due to the number of the patients involved) and NPs in general.
CP is not supposed to depend on the disease or the NP’s qualities, which is why no stratification is suggested (Bergdahl et al., 2013, p. 343). It is proposed to take into account the experience of NPs, but it is not going to affect their eligibility. All the NPs who currently work in palliative care and have not studied the intervention proposed by Bergdahl et al. (2013) will be eligible.
Sampling Strategy
The sampling strategy will begin with contacting palliative clinics or clinics and their NPs. The research design and aim will be explained to them; they will be provided with a copy of informed consent and encouraged to inquire their patients, who will also need to provide consent, about their intent or lack of intent to participate. The final sample will be randomly split into two groups: control and CP. Such a strategy corresponds to the type of the research; apart from that, randomization is “the most effective approach” to improving the validity of a study (Polit & Beck, 2014, p. 166)
Research Design
The type of the research design is a randomized controlled trial (RCT), which is a subtype of the experiment proper. The specifics of RCT include the random assignment of the people from the sample to either the intervention or control group (Polit & Beck, 2014). The NPs from one group will receive the CP training; those from the other one will not. Both groups will be followed for a year, which makes the study longitudinal (El-Masri, 2014). The baseline data will be gathered before the intervention; apart from that, it will be collected throughout the year, which makes the study a pretest-posttest one (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). It is a field experiment since is it going to be “conducted in real-life setting” (Johnson & Christensen, 2014, p. 321).
Rationale
RCT is one of “the most powerful designs for testing hypotheses and cause-and-effect relationships” (Polit & Beck, 2014, p. 156). The usage of RCT provides the opportunity of comparing the results of the trained group, and the randomization ensures the validity of the study. The longitudinal aspect is necessary to guarantee the “temporal relationship between the exposure and the outcome” (El-Masri, 2014, p. 16). It also might indicate the effect of practicing CP on NPs’ success. The pretest provides the baseline; the repeated posttests supply the results and their development. As for the field experiment aspect, it is mostly a necessity: such a longitudinal study cannot be carried out in a laboratory. This aspect of the research ensures that CP will be tested in real-world settings, but it also has the disadvantage of the lack of control over the extraneous variables (Johnson & Christensen, 2014, p. 321).
The research will employ mixed methods of data gathering since the measurement of variables needs both qualitative and quantitative information. The study will mostly use questionnaires (quality of life, relationships, NPs’ opinions concerning CP) and also measure disease-specific parameters.
References
Bergdahl, E., Benzein, E., Ternstedt, B., Elmberger, E., & Andershed, B. (2013). Co-creating possibilities for patients in palliative care to reach vital goals: A multiple case study of home-care nursing encounters. Nursing Inquiry, 20(4), 341-351. Web.
El-Masri, M. M. (2014). Prospective cohort study design. Canadian Nurse, 110(2), 16. Web.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Polit, D., & Beck, C. (2014). Essentials of nursing research. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.