Reflexivity can be a complex concept to grasp when entering the world of qualitative research. In this paper, we aim to encourage new qualitative researchers to become reflexive as they develop their critical research skills, differentiating between the familiar concept of reflection and reflective practice and that of reflexivity. While reflection is, to all intents and purposes, a goal-oriented action with the aim of improving practice, reflexivity is a continual process of engaging with and articulating the place of the researcher and the context of the research. It also involves challenging and articulating social and cultural influences and dynamics that affect that context. As a hallmark of high quality qualitative research, reflexivity is not only an individual process, but one that needs to be considered a collective process within a research team and communicated throughout the research process. In keeping with our previous papers in this series, we have illustrated the theoretical concept of reflexivity using practical examples of published research As a group of researchers, clinicians and academics, we are drawn together to support and further the development of qualitative research in medical and health professions education.Bringing together our diverse disciplinary backgrounds, research experiences and positions, in writing a series of 'How to….'papers for The Clinical Teacher, we hope to support qualitative researchers, students and teachers. We have challenged ourselves to collaborate not solely on areas of common interest, but to explore issues in qualitative research that allow us also to learn from each other.
SUMMARY As a clinician interested in qualitative research, you are likely to have pondered whether a particular study is trustworthy. How do you know whether qualitative research findings are valid and can be applied in your setting? The quality standards you would look for in quantitative research do not apply. Furthermore, qualitative research is conducted within a number of paradigms, or ways of understanding the nature of reality and knowledge, each associated with different ways of defining, understanding and reporting quality. This ‘How to …’ article aims to support health care practitioners, educators and researchers to recognise some of the essential characteristics or ‘markers’ of high‐quality qualitative research. We hope that this article will support those reflecting on the quality of their own research, those justifying research design to funders and those reviewing qualitative research for journals or for inclusion in reviews.
IntroductionPrescribing antibiotics is an error-prone activity and one of the more challenging responsibilities for doctors in training. The nature and extent of challenges experienced by them at different stages of the antibiotic prescribing process are not well described, meaning that interventions may not target the most problematic areas.ObjectivesOur aim was to explore doctors in training experiences of common problems in the antibiotic prescribing process using cultural–historical activity theory (CHAT). Our research questions were as follows: What are the intended stages in the antibiotic prescribing process? What are the challenges and where in the prescribing process do these occur?MethodsWe developed a process model based on how antibiotic prescribing is intended to occur in a ‘typical’ National Health Service hospital in the UK. The model was first informed by literature and refined through consultation with practising healthcare professionals and medical educators. Then, drawing on CHAT, we analysed 33 doctors in training narratives of their antibiotic prescribing experiences to identify and interpret common problems in the process.ResultsOur analysis revealed five main disturbances commonly occurring during the antibiotic prescribing process: consultation challenges, lack of continuity, process variation, challenges in patient handover and partial loss of object. Our process model, with 31 stages and multiple practitioners, captures the complexity, inconsistency and unpredictability of the process. The model also highlights ‘hot spots’ in the process, which are the stages that doctors in training are most likely to have difficulty navigating.ConclusionsOur study widens the understanding of doctors in training prescribing experiences and development needs regarding the prescribing process. Our process model, identifying the common disturbances and hot spots in the process, can facilitate the development of antibiotic prescribing activities and the optimal design of interventions to support doctors in training.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.