Discussion 3 – Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research
Discussion 3 – Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research
Discussion 3
Veziari et al. (2022) explore the barriers ad enablers to the conduct and application of research among complementary and alternative medicine stakeholders in Australia and New Zealand, adopting a qualitative descriptive research design. To ensure ethical conduct, the researchers obtained consent before conducting the interviews. The researchers did not use participant identifiers but assigned each participant a unique alpha-numerical identification pseudonym that ensured data could be used to identify the participants. Participants were selected from a contact list of a survey completed previously examining the barriers to the research conduct and application. A non-probability self-selection was used in choosing participants to ensure an individual had adequate experience in the study phenomena and could offer information-rich data. The researchers did not emphasize or focus on rigid distribution because they needed robust information to study the phenomenon in detail, so they used the contact list of a previous study with participants with already diverse experiences in the phenomena. However, this approach creates a selection bias that can impact the research findings’ generalizability and reliability. For instance, using a non-probability selection gives other willing participants no chance of being in the sample, increasing the risk of undercoverage bias, which conflicts with the principle of justice and fairness (Barrow et al., 2022). Also, the selection is based on ease of access, which creates a sampling bias, according to Andrade (2021).
The participants selected for the study do not fit the criteria of a vulnerable population because the study included only researchers and practitioners from a previous contact list. Researchers and practitioners have professional knowledge and understanding of the research phenomena and do not fall within groups considered vulnerable, including ethnic and racial minorities, children, the elderly, the disabled, the socioeconomically disadvantaged, and those with disabling medical conditions. The participants only shared their opinions and perspectives on the study phenomena and were not subjected to any physical harm or discomfort, not that is documented. The participants were interviewed via video-conferencing at a convenient date and time. The steps taken to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of participants include obtaining consent and avoiding the collection of personal identifiers, instead using a unique alpha-numerical identification pseudonym that ensured data could be used to identify the participants.
References
Andrade C. (2021). The Inconvenient Truth About Convenience and Purposive Samples. Indian journal of psychological medicine, 43(1), 86–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620977000
Barrow, J. M., Brannan, G. D., & Khandhar, P. B. (2022). Research ethics. In StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing.
Veziari, Y., Kumar, S., & Leach, M. J. (2022). An exploration of barriers and enablers to the conduct and application of research among complementary and alternative medicine stakeholders in Australia and New Zealand: A qualitative descriptive study. Plos one, 17(2), e0264221.
