Successful research in Clinical practice requires community health programs to establish suitable data collection strategies to gather objective evidence and information. The figures obtained should align with the study goals and seek to answer the research questions. Data for clinical evaluation can either be quantitative or qualitative (Rutberg & Bouikidis, 2018). The primary difference between qualitative and quantitative data is that qualitative statistics involve measured quantities, such as numbers. In contrast, qualitative data describes aspects that can only be seen but not quantified, such as speech. Numerical data that is countable and indicates the extent of change resulting from an experiment is denoted as quantitative data. It can be gathered through program tracking resources, questionnaires, and surveys. The data is collected when an experimenter wants to quantify an issue or address aspects of ‘how many’ and ‘what’ in a research question. For example, Solvik and Struksnes (2018) gather information using questionnaires to collect data related to students’ satisfaction with learning sessions before and after clinical practice. The questionnaires were then ciphered with numerical figures representing every individual and their grade affiliations. The responses were recorded into SPSS, frequency tables created, and tests conducted to compare the two identified groups as per the investigation questions.
On the other hand, qualitative statistics consist of descriptions that capture program outcomes’ circumstances. The data is critical in conducting research that contains external and contextual factors that can affect the success of a program, such as population characteristics, geography, and relationships among territorial, tribal, local, state, and federal stakeholders. Collection strategies under this method include qualitative program reviews, focus groups, and interviews. For instance, Foley et al. (2019) use qualitative data to systematically review the reasons and rates of complementary medicine (CM) utilization disclosure to health care providers. The authors collected data for the research by reviewing eighty-six papers containing reasons for or rates of CM use among medical professionals (Foley et al., 2019). Fourteen most relevant articles were chosen for meta-analysis, making the method qualitative and descriptive in nature.
References
Foley, H., Steel, A., Cramer, H., Wardle, J., & Adams, J. (2019). Disclosure of complementary medicine use to medical providers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific reports, 9(1), 1-17.
Rutberg, S., & Bouikidis, C. (2018). Focusing on the fundamentals: A simplistic differentiation between qualitative and quantitative research. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 45(2), 209-213. Web.
Solvik, E., & Struksnes, S. (2018). Training nursing skills: A quantitative study of nursing students’ experiences before and after clinical practice. Nursing Research and Practice, 2018, 1-10.