Compañerismo y disciplina

This research adopts O‟Cathain (2010) comprehensive framework which can be used to assess the quality of research by first describing varying conceptualisations of the research quality, exploring the gaps in the conceptualisations and contested areas, and testing the quality framework through its application to qualitative study. The author questions the methods through which the quality of the studies is assessed, and provides a comprehensive approach constituting eight domains as proposed by O‟Cathain (2010): Planning Quality, Design Quality, Data Quality, Interpretive Rigour, Inference Transferability, Reporting Quality, Synthesisability, and Utility. Each of the eight domains is comprehensive. For instance, the well-researched interpretive rigour domain entails consistency of interpretation and theory, interpretive agreement, correspondence and distinctiveness, and integrative efficacy (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2009). In a previous study by O'Cathain et al., (2008) the authors argue that a good study should be clear in justifying the suitability of the approach, offer a transparent account of the design, give suitable sampling data-gathering and analysis of each component. The reporting quality domain entails transparency in reporting, and as O'Cathain et al., (2008) assert, a good study must describe the justification for using the approach to the research question, offer an explanation of design in relation to purpose, the methods sequence, give a description of each method in relation to sampling, collection of date and analysis, explain any form of integration in terms of its occurrence and participants, discuss the limitations of the method, and give insights achieved from the study.

138

This research used O‟Cathain‟s (2010) comprehensive quality framework for assessing the rigour and quality of research, which helps ensure that the study is responsible for rigour and quality in each of the eight domains (see Table 5.5: how the eight domains of quality framework are met through the study). The domains represent the various stages in the study‟s design, dissemination and implementation. The quality from each of the above domains is assessed and all the issues are analysed from all the listed stages which are relevant to all the issues presented. In research, the literature review explains the domains; during the description of the domains, the issues in the various stages are covered, giving clarity to the research being conducted. O‟Cathain et al. (2008) reveals that guidelines were developed after reviewing research into the health service. The research guidelines which were used ensured that most aspects of the research were described. Thus, in order to ensure that most of the parts of a study are covered, the universal guidelines must be considered. The aspects include:

 Describing each method

 Describing the design of the study including both methods and aims  Describing the methods chosen as the design of the study

 Describing the limitations of methods used  Describing the insights.

Using O‟Cathain‟s (2010) framework helped to ensure that the research took into consideration quality and rigour in the domains present in this study (see Table 5.5).

139

Table 5.5: How the 8 Domains of a Quality Framework were Met Through the Study

Domain

Planning Quality of planning

1. The literature was comprehensively and critically reviewed 2. There was transparency of the rationale 3. Transparency in planning 4. Viability or practicability

1. A chapter of literature review was included in the thesis

2. The research design section offered an explanation

3. The paper provided paradigm, design, collection of data and a dissemination plan.

4. The study was feasible in relation to time, finances and personnel

Design Quality of design 1. Transparency of design 2. Suitability of design 3. Strength of design 4. Rigour of the design

1. A clear explanation of the research design

2. The research design section gave an explanation of its suitability

3. All the strengths and weaknesses of the methods was discussed in each methods section

4. The methods are inflexible as they strictly followed the study design. The qualitative data were collected and analysed separately prior to integration Data Quality of data 1. Transparency in

data collection 2.Suitability of the collection method 3. Strength of the collected data 4. Data rigour

1. All methods were explained in detail, including their significance and role, data collection, study sample and size

2. the suitability of the method and data collected were explained

3. All methods were implemented with thoroughness and fidelity. All forms of data cleaning were accounted for

3. Sampling and sample size explanations were outlined.

4. Data analysis was appropriate to guarantee answering every research question

Interpretation Interpretive Rigour 1. Transparency of interpretation 2. Consistency of interpretation 3. Consistency of theory 4. Agreement of interpretation 5. Distinctiveness of interpretation 6. Efficiency of interpretation 7. Bias reduction in interpretation 8.Correspondence of interpretation

1. Data was first analysed separately to guarantee clarity regarding which findings emerged from each method

2. Findings were reported in conjunction with inferences

3. Inferences were associated with present knowledge and principle

4. Agreement was ensured in all interpretations

5 and 6. Interpretations were efficiently made through evidence-based associations 7. Inconsistencies will be explained. 8. The research questions were identified and answered correctly

Inference Transferability of inference

1. Ecological transferability

In areas concerning ecological, population, progressive and theoretical transferability,

140 2. Population transferability 3. Progressive transferability 4. Theoretical transferability

the findings of the current research were transferable to other service providers to enable improvement of access to dementia services by people from South Asian population

Reporting Quality of reporting 1. Availability of report

2. Transparency of reporting

3. Yield

1. The study was feasible in relation to time, finances and personnel

2. Data provided insights into the research problem which was included in the discussion section of the current study 3. Data identifies the whole being more, compared to the sum of the parts Synthesisability Real-world

application

Quality criteria At the end of the study, it would be easy to conduct the study within a systematic review of studies

Utility Quality of Utility Utility quality The study results will be applied in clinical practice