There have risen numerous research facilities over the years, in an effort to curb some of the worst medical related issues. As information on certain critical medical matters changes by a factor of ten every month, there calls a need for research to improve the data related to health issues. Ultimately, research findings may not always be accurate and although they aid in the providence of knowledge on how to tackle upcoming clinical threats, some of the results maybe misguided and hence lead to dire clinical issues, depending on the method of research used to collect the necessary information. In the article, A Qualitative Study of Treatment Needs Among Pregnant and Postpartum Women with Substance Use and Depression, a study carried out by a group of researchers identified that there was little knowledge pertaining to pregnant and postpartum women affected by depression and drug abuse. The group funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse conducted research to identify the best probable treatment for such patients. Hence, this volume gives a critique review on some of the methods of research used, as well as the positive and negative outcomes.
The group recruited participants that fitted the research criteria of the study, from August 2011 to September 2011. The subjects were drawn from programs of inpatients and outpatients. An Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale sorted them, and if they scored higher than ten, it immediately indicated that they were depressed. The participants who were, at least, eighteen years and above were given explanations on study procedures and their brief demographic data collected privately to safeguard their privacy. The research group conducted three focus groups with each group consisting of 4-7 participants summing up to 18 subject members. The research team upheld their confidentiality by not including their names in the reports but rather identified them by through their races where eleven women were non-Hispanic white, four Hispanic women and the rest were African American and Native American women.
The research used to identify the treatment for the relevant focus group patients could have used a tradition research approach by the description and comparison of the traditions of ecological psychology and symbolic interactions (Ashford, 2016). The research methods were moderated through the principal investigation study and their questions ranging from a period of 90 to 120 minutes where they mostly relied on the answers provided by women. The answers included their perspective on the kind of treatment that would mostly be effective for pregnant and postpartum women with a drug addiction problem. Hence, their research would have been advanced through the introduction of the research tradition methodology for they relate in terms of cause and effect.
Among the sampling methods used in the qualitative study was stratified sampling, where the research group divided the focus groups into three parts and hence included the participants certain characteristics, since all members differed in terms of origin since all participants were randomly picked from the rural and urban areas. The other sampling method used was cluster sampling that involves the selection of groups of study rather than the choosing of individual study units. The research group would have found it hard to use the simple random sample that was definitely time-consuming and would not have been effective, so they ultimately decided to use cluster-sampling method where they formulated three focus groups of study that had promising outcomes. Although the sampling procedures are not clearly marked in the article, the sampling method used can easily be identified as a cluster and stratified methods of sampling.
The research team used a few methods of data collection in the qualitative study, among them being live interviews with the participants. The whole purpose of the research interview was to identify more on the experiences and views and beliefs of the participants on particular issues revolving around their cycle of life. Interviews are a more efficient way of providing a deeper comprehension of social phenomena. Other methods such as questionnaires were not as fruitful as interviews but ultimately played a part. Hence, the researchers used the best method of collecting viable information. Research teams always recorded most of the interviews for future reference use. Most interviews carried out were highly beneficial not only to the research teams but also to the participants who narrated their personal experiences to other focus group members hence making them feel that their experience related to the other participants and it would be quite redundant to say that the method was clearly successful and the best possible one.
The researchers analyzed that their approach was led by a grounded theory approach that consisted of creating a preliminary codebook based on the focus group discussion guide. The study had several implications on the clinical practices and the researchers’ discussion on the growth of modified treatment for pregnant and postpartum women facing strange challenges during that particular period of their life mainly those with drug addiction problems. Their findings deduced that most of the focus group participants were motivated and were ready to forego their substance use behavior and address the depression issue clearly showing positive outcomes that treatment had started to take effect (Johnson, 2013). The study highlighted that positive social support groups and other sober network members may have had a major impact on the recovery of the focus group members during their transition into motherhood hence realizing that the clinical practices may require the adoption of support groups and sober network members as part of a treatment strategy. However, while the study had positive outcome it levied clinical implication, for instance, their sample sizes were smaller hence the limitation of the generalizing capability of the relevant finding on to other clinics and other unidentified communities. Although their data collection method was limited, as they never gathered longitudinal data, such data would have aided in additional information on how changes during the subject patient’s period affect the results of the treatment. As mentioned by Twisk (2013), longitudinal data is best applicable in analyzing and observing changes in samples over time.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the qualitative study critiqued herein had promising outcomes, most especially in their findings on the reaction of the focus group members to treatment, generally on their attitude towards social support groups and sober network members as a tactic of psychological treatment. Unfortunately, the study was not necessarily complete and was truly far from over; it still left the need and room for future research like for instance as mentioned earlier, their failure to gather longitudinal data. Ultimately, the qualitative study did identify most crucial factors that affected treatment results and treatment needs, as the participants in the formulated focus groups provided credible information on treatment effects giving specified views on what aspects of treatment to be improved.