Evidence-Based Practice (EBP)
Good health practitioners "use both individual expertise and best available external evidence, and neither alone is enough" (Sackett et al., 1996, p.72).
When you're looking for existing research, the hierarchy that you follow will depend on the question that you're asking, and what kinds of answers you need. Ultimately, how you use different kinds of evidence will be contextual to your topic.
According to Liamputtong (2017), qualitative research:
And quantitative research:
A mixed methods study uses both quantitative and qualitative techniques in the research – for example, you might want to count the type and number of services that a particular group of people are utilising, AND find out the reasons for their using the service (Liamputtong, 2017).
To find out more about study designs in health research, have a look at this Deakin University guide.
The relevance and feasibility of a study are also important aspects to consider. However, a hierarchical model of evidence can be used as one method of deciding on which evidence to use (Liamputtong, 2017) – and finding the best available evidence to answer your question.
Table 1 Comparison of qualitative and quantitative research methods
Qualitative research |
Quantitative research |
Uses participants’ point of view – uses focus groups, interviews, case studies |
Researcher’s point of view – surveys, polls |
Uses open-ended questions – encourages words |
Uses close-ended or multiple choice questions – data comes through as numbers |
Helps formulate a theory to be researched – “theory emergent” |
Tests and confirms a formulated theory – “theory testing” |
Occurs in a natural setting. This gives contextual understanding and meaning, and fewer respondents are needed. |
Usually occurs in a somewhat artificial setting. Many respondents are needed to help with the generalisability. |
Harder to replicate - an unstructured process, on a smaller scale |
Easy to replicate – hard, reliable data from very structured and macro research methods. |
Less suitable for sensitive data (respondents may be biased, too familiar, or inclined to leak information) |
Good for sensitive data as it can be anonymised and secured. |
Gets rich and deep data |
Findings are presented in statistical format (numbers, tables, graphs) |
Researcher tends to be closer |
Research more distant. |
Note. Adapted from Research Methods in Health: Foundations for Evidence-Based Practice (p. 17) by P. Liamputtong, 2017, Oxford University Press. And Customer Insights (ch. 6) by A. Khan, M. Hossain, & S. Amin, 2023, Western Sydney University.
Here are hierarchies for both quantitative and qualitative research. Remember, these are just used as a framework to find information - there is work to do on defining your question first to see what kind of research you should be looking for.
References
Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B., & Schults, A. (2005). Transforming health care from the inside out: advancing evidence-based practice in the 21st century. Journal of Professional Nursing, 21(6), 335-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2005.10.005
Khan, A., Hossain, M., & Amin, S. (2023). Qualitative vs quantitative research. In A. Khan, M. Hossain, & S. Amin (Eds.), Customer Insights (2nd edition). Western Sydney University. https://oercollective.caul.edu.au/customer-insights/chapter/qualitative-vs-quantitative-research/
Liamputtong, P. (2017). The science of words and the science of numbers. In P. Liamputtong (Eds.), Research Methods in Health: Foundations for Evidence-Based Practice (3rd edition, pp. 3–28). Oxford University Press. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.utas.edu.au/lib/utas/detail.action?docID=4942011
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Muir Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W.S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 312, 7023, 71-72. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2349778/pdf/bmj00524-0009.pdf