Essay Sample on Murphy, Chuma, Mathews, Steyn, & Levitt's Study

Introduction

Murphy, Chuma, Mathews, Steyn, & Levitt's (2015) study, A qualitative study of the experiences of care and motivation for effective self-management among diabetic and hypertensive patients attending public sector primary health care services in South Africa, was aimed at exploring two key issues. First, the researchers sought to address the scarcity of data in South Africa related to non-communicable disease patients' current experiences of chronic care, their views on and their ability to undertake self-management. Secondly, the study was aimed at exploring what patients may need from healthcare providers to empower themselves to become actively collaborate with healthcare professionals in their long-term care. Murphy et al. (2015) explored these issues among diabetic and hypertensive patients seeking healthcare services from public hospitals in Cape Town.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

To address the issues related to the study, the researchers carried out a qualitative research study which consisted of individual, in-depth interviews with patients diagnosed hypertension and diabetes. The participants were selected into the study via criterion sampling technique. The inclusion criteria included diabetic and hypertensive patients; being more than 18 years of age; had been diagnosed with diabetes and hypertension within the past 10 years but for more than the past 3 months; were proficient in English and gave informed consent, and were willing to be interviewed in a clinical environment. Data collection was conducted through in-depth qualitative interviews. Through these interviews, the researchers gathered data related to patients' beliefs, opinions, experiences, opinions, beliefs, and feelings and actions.

The theoretical basis for the study was well-described in the study. Self Determination Theory (SDT) was the underlying theoretical basis for the research as it provided the researchers with an essential framework for understanding the patients' capacity and motivation for self-management and the degree to which the healthcare system enhances or impede it. The SDT asserts that patients are highly likely to identify with and see the need to engage in healthy lifestyle behaviors or stick to treatment when there is support for their psychological needs of relatedness, competence, and autonomy.

Murphy et al. (2015) concluded that the findings of the study contribute to understanding what non-communicable disease patients need from their healthcare providers to effectively undertake self-management of their conditions. Specifically, the researchers concluded that healthcare providers could play a crucial in encouraging and helping patients to modify non-communicable disease risk behaviors.

Analysis of the Study

One of the strengths of Murphy et al.'s (2015) study is that the article made original contribution to the existing findings related to the topic. This is because the researchers did an in-depth background of the study leading to the identification of the existing gap in the literature. The literature gap which necessitated the need for the current study is limited data in South Africa related to non-communicable disease patients' current experiences of chronic care, their views on and their ability to undertake self-management. Also, the sample size for this study was appropriate. In the present study, the sample comprised of 22 participants. Few participants are suitable for qualitative studies because it enables the researchers to have an in-depth examination of the phenomenon being explored (Aurini, Heath, & Howells, 2016; Bretherton & Law, 2015; Holloway & Galvin, 2017; Willig & Stainton Rogers, 2017). Latham (2019) further explained that for most qualitative interview studies, fifteen is a minimum number of participants when the sample for the study is homogenous.

Another strength of is that the researchers employed a robust qualitative data collection technique. In the present study, the researcher utilized interviews to gather participants' beliefs, opinions, experiences, opinions, beliefs, and feelings and actions. One of the advantages of interviews is that it enables the researchers to gain detailed information on the issue being explored (Babbie, 2017; Besen-Cassino & Cassino, 2017; O'Sullivan, Rassel, & Taliaferro, 2016). The use of in-depth interviews is also useful because they are comprised of open-ended questions that allow researchers to uncover information that does not fit into predetermined categories (Besen-Cassino & Cassino, 2017). In-depth interview was also appropriate for the current study because it enables the participants to walk the interviewers through their reasoning, undertake a description of a particular process, and elaborate more on the topic. Since open-ended interviews are conversational, the researcher can go back and ask for clarification.

One of the limitations of study is that the authors failed to provide the research question that guided the study. Another limitation of Murphy et al.'s (2015) study is that the number of men and women participants were not the same. Specifically, there were more women than men in the study thus limiting the ability to establish gender differences in participants' self-management strategies and experience of care. Unequal sample size affects generalizability of findings (Fonseca, Faber, Fonseca, & Faber, 2014).

Application

Findings of this study contribute to understanding what non-communicable disease patients need from their healthcare providers to effectively undertake self-management of their conditions. Using the results of this study, healthcare providers can play a crucial in motivating and helping patients in the modification of non-communicable disease risk behaviors. Through change of such behaviors, the patients are capable of attaining achieving better health outcomes.

References

Aurini, J., Heath, M., & Howells, S. (2016). The how to of qualitative research. Los Angeles: Sage Publishers.

Babbie, E. R. (2017). The basics of social research (Seventh edition). Boston, MA, USA: Cengage Learning.

Besen-Cassino, Y., & Cassino, D. (2017). Social research methods by example: applications in the modern world. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Bretherton, D., & Law, S. F. (2015). Methodologies in peace psychology peace research by peaceful means. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18395-4

Fonseca, L. M., Faber, J., Fonseca, L. M., & Faber, J. (2014). How sample size influences research outcomes. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, 19(4), 27-29. https://doi.org/10.1590/2176-9451.19.4.027-029.ebo

Holloway, I., & Galvin, K. (2017). Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare (4th edition). Ames, Iowa: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Latham, J. (2019). Qualitative sample size - how many participants is enough? Retrieved from https://www.drjohnlatham.com/many-participants-enough/

Murphy, K., Chuma, T., Mathews, C., Steyn, K., & Levitt, N. (2015). A qualitative study of the experiences of care and motivation for effective self-management among diabetic and hypertensive patients attending public sector primary health care services in South Africa. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0969-y

O'Sullivan, E., Rassel, G. R., & Taliaferro, J. D. (2016). Practical research methods for nonprofit and public administrators. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1244176

Willig, C., & Stainton Rogers, W. (2017). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology. Los Angeles, Calif.; London: SAGE Publications.