Caring for Children With Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome
Caring for Children With Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome
As with all secondary analysis studies, consideration must be given to methodogical limitations that may affect the credibility of findings (Heaton, 2000; Hinds, Vogel, & Clarke-Steffen, 1997; Thorne, 1998). The main limitation of this study was that the new concepts and findings were not explored with participants through conducting further parent interviews with either the same or additional participants. This was due to both the limited scope of the study and respect for participant burden in these families (Heaton, 1998). However, given that this study was part of a larger evolving program of research, there is opportunity to further explore these concepts in current and ongoing research interviews with this population. Because there were no additional interviews, theoretical sampling could also not be conducted to address new concepts with additional participants (Charmaz, 2006). However, the concept of theoretical sampling was applied to this secondary analysis by using two sample cohorts (the Norwood and Sano surgical groups) (Szabo & Strang, 1997).
Another consideration is the transparency about the original study, and compatibility of the research questions in the original studies and in the secondary analysis (Heaton, 1998, 2000; Thorne, 1998). The original studies were aimed at defining processes of parenting children with complex CHD, while the secondary analysis involved a more detailed analysis of the concepts involved with parental vigilance; thus, the questions were compatible (Heaton, 2000). The first author who conducted the secondary analysis had access to all original data, transcripts, and field notes, and spoke with the last author, who conducted the original studies and provided important contextual information affecting the interpretation of the data for the secondary analysis (Heaton, 1998; Hinds et al., 1997; Szabo & Strang, 1997). In addition, the ethical review process was extensive, ensuring participant consent for secondary analysis and assurance that the original data could address the new research questions (Hinds et al., 1997; Szabo & Strang, 1997). Finally, data that were used were evident in many interviews, and thus, did not reflect incidental findings (Hinds et al., 1997).
One is always concerned about the possibility of author bias in the findings. The findings of this secondary analysis, as with the original grounded theory studies, reflect the constructivist paradigm, whereby the researcher perspective is integral to the study findings (Charmaz, 2006). Having three authors with extensive experience in conducting qualitative research, including secondary analysis of qualitative data, contributed to the rigor of the findings (Hinds et al., 1997).
Limitations
As with all secondary analysis studies, consideration must be given to methodogical limitations that may affect the credibility of findings (Heaton, 2000; Hinds, Vogel, & Clarke-Steffen, 1997; Thorne, 1998). The main limitation of this study was that the new concepts and findings were not explored with participants through conducting further parent interviews with either the same or additional participants. This was due to both the limited scope of the study and respect for participant burden in these families (Heaton, 1998). However, given that this study was part of a larger evolving program of research, there is opportunity to further explore these concepts in current and ongoing research interviews with this population. Because there were no additional interviews, theoretical sampling could also not be conducted to address new concepts with additional participants (Charmaz, 2006). However, the concept of theoretical sampling was applied to this secondary analysis by using two sample cohorts (the Norwood and Sano surgical groups) (Szabo & Strang, 1997).
Another consideration is the transparency about the original study, and compatibility of the research questions in the original studies and in the secondary analysis (Heaton, 1998, 2000; Thorne, 1998). The original studies were aimed at defining processes of parenting children with complex CHD, while the secondary analysis involved a more detailed analysis of the concepts involved with parental vigilance; thus, the questions were compatible (Heaton, 2000). The first author who conducted the secondary analysis had access to all original data, transcripts, and field notes, and spoke with the last author, who conducted the original studies and provided important contextual information affecting the interpretation of the data for the secondary analysis (Heaton, 1998; Hinds et al., 1997; Szabo & Strang, 1997). In addition, the ethical review process was extensive, ensuring participant consent for secondary analysis and assurance that the original data could address the new research questions (Hinds et al., 1997; Szabo & Strang, 1997). Finally, data that were used were evident in many interviews, and thus, did not reflect incidental findings (Hinds et al., 1997).
One is always concerned about the possibility of author bias in the findings. The findings of this secondary analysis, as with the original grounded theory studies, reflect the constructivist paradigm, whereby the researcher perspective is integral to the study findings (Charmaz, 2006). Having three authors with extensive experience in conducting qualitative research, including secondary analysis of qualitative data, contributed to the rigor of the findings (Hinds et al., 1997).
