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.
Introduction: Self-management is considered a potential answer to the increasing demand for family medicine by people suffering from a chronic condition or multi-morbidity. A key element of self-management is goal setting. Goal setting is often defined as a moment of agreement between a professional and a patient. In the self-management literature, however, goal setting is regarded as a circular process. Still, it is unclear how professionals working in family medicine can put it into practice. This background paper aims to contribute to the understanding of goal setting within self-management and to identify elements that need further development for practical use. Debate: Four questions for debate emerge in this article: (1) What are self-management goals? (2) What is necessary to accomplish the process of goal setting within self-management? (3) How can professionals decide on the degree of support needed for goal setting within self-management? (4) How can patients set their goals and how can they be supported? Implications: Self-management goals can be set for different (life) domains. Using a holistic framework will help in creating an overview of patients’ goals that do not merely focus on medical issues. It is a challenge for professionals to coach their patients to think about and set their goals themselves. More insight in patients’ willingness and ability to set self-management goals is desirable. Moreover, as goal setting is a circular process, professionals need to be supported to go through this process with their patients.
Background: The strain on health care services is increasing due to an ageing population and the increasing prevalence of chronic health conditions. eHealth could contribute to optimise effective and efficient care to older adults with one or more chronic health conditions in the general practice. Aim: The aim of this study was to identify the needs, barriers and facilitators amongst community-dwelling older adults (60þ) suffering from one or more chronic health conditions, in using online eHealth applications to support general practice services. Methods: A qualitative study, using semi-structured followed by think-aloud interviews, was conducted in the Netherlands. The semi-structured interviews, supported by an interview guide were conducted and analysed thematically. The think-aloud method was used to collect data about the cognitive process while the participant was completing a task within online eHealth applications. Verbal analysis according to the Chi approach was conducted to analyse the think-aloud interviews. Findings: A total of n = 19 older adults with a mean age of 73 years participated. The ability to have immediate contact with the GP on important health issues was identified as an important need. Identified barriers were non-familiarity with the online eHealth applications and a mismatch of user health needs. The low computer experience resulted in non-familiarity with the online eHealth applications. Faltering applications resulted in participants refusing to participate in the use of online eHealth applications. Convenience, efficiency and the instant availability of eHealth via applications were identified as important facilitators. Conclusion: To improve the use and acceptability of eHealth applications amongst older adults in the general practice, the applications should be tailored to meet individual needs. More attention should be given to improving the user-friendliness of these applications and to the promotion of the benefits such as facilitating older adults independent living for longer.
