Background: Experiencing flow, an optimal psychological state, can support health and well-being. A developmental perspective on flow so far examines strategies to facilitate these experiences in the face of developmental losses such as ageing. People with disabilities experience restrictions in participation and thus fewer occupations that potentially induce flow. Therefore, contributions to this perspective can be gained from disabled people’s experiences. Thus, this meta-study synthesises qualitative research literature to determine the contribution to a developmental perspective on flow in people with disabilities. Methods: Following a systematic search of four databases (PsycInfo (EBSCO), PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCO), Scopus) 10 qualitative, peer-reviewed studies were included, and critically appraised. Findings as well as methodologies, and underlying theories were analysed and synthesised. Findings: Various methodologies have been used to explore flow experiences of people with disabilities. Incongruencies between underlying theories and chosen methods, as well as lack of researcher reflexivity impacted the trustworthiness of some studies. All studies originated within occupational therapy research and were located in the global North, implying assumptions about occupation and well-being and a rehabilitation framework. The individuals’ choice and control, and adaptations of environment and occupation emerged from the meta-synthesis as important factors to experiencing flow. Conclusion: To enhance opportunities for flow in the lives of people with disabilities, a shift of perspective from individual impairments towards issues of accessibility and occupational justice is needed. Based on this meta-study, critical disability theory and participatory frameworks are recommended for future research to explore strategies to enhance access to flow inducing occupations.
DOCUMENT
In the course of our supervisory work over the years, we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called frequently asked questions (FAQs). This series of four articles intends to provide novice researchers with practical guidance for conducting high-quality qualitative research in primary care. By ‘novice’ we mean Master’s students and junior researchers, as well as experienced quantitative researchers who are engaging in qualitative research for the first time. This series addresses their questions and provides researchers, readers, reviewers and editors with references to criteria and tools for judging the quality of qualitative research papers. This second article addresses FAQs about context, research questions and designs. Qualitative research takes into account the natural contexts in which individuals or groups function to provide an in-depth understanding of real-world problems. The research questions are generally broad and open to unexpected findings. The choice of a qualitative design primarily depends on the nature of the research problem, the research question(s) and the scientific knowledge one seeks. Ethnography, phenomenology and grounded theory are considered to represent the ‘big three’ qualitative approaches. Theory guides the researcher through the research process by providing a ‘lens’ to look at the phenomenon under study. Since qualitative researchers and the participants of their studies interact in a social process, researchers influence the research process. The first article described the key features of qualitative research, the third article will focus on sampling, data collection and analysis, while the last article focuses on trustworthiness and publishing.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: To gain a rich understanding of the experiences and opinions of patients, healthcare professionals, and policymakers regarding the design of OGR with structure, process, environment, and outcome components. Methods: Qualitative research based on the constructive grounded theory approach is performed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients who received OGR (n=13), two focus groups with healthcare professionals (n=13), and one focus group with policymakers (n=4). The Post-acute Care Rehabilitation quality framework was used as a theoretical background in all research steps. Results: The data analysis of all perspectives resulted in seven themes: the outcome of OGR focuses on the patient’s independence and regaining control over their functioning at home. Essential process elements are a patient-oriented network, a well-coordinated dedicated team at home, and blended eHealth applications. Additionally, closer cooperation in integrated care and refinement regarding financial, time-management, and technological challenges is needed with implementation into a permanent structure. All steps should be influenced by the stimulating aspect of the physical and social rehabilitation environment. Conclusion: The three perspectives generally complement each other to regain patients’ quality of life and autonomy. This study demonstrates an overview of the building blocks that can be used in developing and designing an OGR trajectory.
DOCUMENT
