The purpose of the research was to “explore patient and physician perspectives on the usefulness of a new technology to detect Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy (CAN) in a specialist diabetes clinic” (Pals et al., 2015). The implicit question can be summarized as: Is the adoption of CAN a continuous process that requires deliberate sense-making actions and empowerment of its users?
The qualitative study involved the analysis of patient and health care practitioners’ perspectives on the technology use. The physicians that participated in the research had 3 months’ experience with CAN tests (Pals et al., 2015).
In terms of sampling, 9 physicians and 13 patients were recruited for the study (Pals et al., 2015). It can be argued that the size of the sample selected was not adequate for producing sound results. However, given that the researchers took a qualitative approach to their research, the clarity of their findings should be judged in terms of how well their objective was met.
The data for the research was collected in the clinic. The patients were approached during CAN tests and asked their permission for observations. The series of observations allowed to assess patients’ and physicians’ reactions and compare them to information obtained during unstructured interviews (Pals et al., 2015).
The content analysis was selected as an analytical approach to the research. The data was separated into different statements and sorted into categories. Then, categories were compared to arrive at common themes. The iterative approach used by the researchers allowed them to discern the perceptional frames of the participants (Pals et al., 2015).
It can be argued that the presence of the researchers during CAN tests affected the participants. It is a substantial limitation of the study, which could have been changed by modifying the approach to data gathering. Also, the researchers recognize that the sample size was not sufficient (Pals et al., 2015). They also concede that perceptions of the participants on CAN tests were not compared to insights on other tests used in the clinic.
Pals et al. (2015) conclude that the physicians find it difficult to interpret the results of CAN tests; therefore, they should opt for a dialogue-based approach to enhance the patient’s understanding. It can be said that the conclusions are based on the collected data. However, it is not clear the researchers avoided bias in the research since they failed to compare the perceptions of different technologies. Nonetheless, the research helps to advance knowledge in the field because it provides valuable insights into the implementation of new technologies into clinical practice.
Pals, R. S., Hansen, U. M., Johansen, C. B., Hansen, C. S., Jørgensen, M. E., Fleischer, J., & Willaing, I. (2015). Making sense of a new technology in clinical practice: a qualitative study of patient and physician perspectives. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1), 1-10. Web.