Suchergebnisse

There is a growing awareness that undertaking qualitative research is an embodied experience and that researchers may be emotionally affected by the work that they do. Despite the interest in the emotional nature of qualitative research, there is very little empirical evidence about the researchers' experiences of undertaking qualitative research. A grounded theory analysis of one-on-one interviews with thirty public health researchers working on a qualitative project provided both theoretical and empirical evidence that qualitative researchers undertake emotion work throughout their research projects. The findings provide examples of researchers doing emotion work in their research projects; highlight some of the consequences of emotion work and offer some suggestions for researcher self-care.

As health researchers we need to investigate a wide range of topics to enhance our understanding of the many issues that affect health and well-being in today's society. Much of the health research undertaken today involves face-to-face encounters with participants using qualitative methodologies. There is a growing recognition that undertaking qualitative research can pose many difficulties for researchers. However, very little research has focused directly on the experiences of researchers while undertaking qualitative research and the issues that their involvement in the research raises for them. To explore these issues, one-to-one interviews were conducted with 30 qualitative health researchers. A grounded theory analysis revealed that researchers can face a number of challenges while undertaking qualitative research. These include issues relating to rapport development, use of researcher self-disclosure, listening to untold stories, feelings of guilt and vulnerability, leaving the research relationship and researcher exhaustion. These results are discussed and recommendations for researchers involved in qualitative research are made.

Purpose: To explore whether there was a difference in objectively measured physical activity and study participation between people who received their preferred study group allocation (matched) and those who did not receive their preferred study group (mismatched). Design: Secondary data from the NewCOACH randomized controlled trial. Setting: Insufficiently active patients in the primary care settings in Sydney and Newcastle, Australia. Participants: One hundred seventy-two adults aged 20 to 81 years. Intervention: Participants indicated their intervention preference at baseline for (1) five face-to-face visits with an exercise specialist, (2) one face-to-face visit and 4 telephone follow-ups with an exercise specialist, (3) written material, or (4) slight-to-no preference. Participants were then allocated to an intervention group and categorized as either "matched" or "mismatched" based on their indications. Participants who reported a slight-to-no preference was categorized as "matched." Measures: Daily step count as measured by pedometers and study participation. Analysis: Mean differences between groups in daily step count at 3 and 12 months (multiple linear regression models) and study participation at baseline, 3 months, and 12 months (χ2 tests). Results: Preference for an intervention group prior to randomization did not significantly (all P's > .05 using 95% confidence interval) impact step counts (differences of <600 steps/day between groups) or study participation. Conclusion: Future research should continue to address whether the strength of preferences influence study outcome and participation and whether the study preferences change over time.