Preeti Jhawar

QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ON LUNG CANCER Contents INTRODUCTION1 BODY2 CONCLUSION4 REFERENCES5 INTRODUCTION Lung cancer, also known as carcinoma of the lung is characterized by uncontrolled or malignant cell growth of the lung tissue. It is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia and is the leading cause of cancer deaths. The estimated number of deaths due to lung cancer in Australia in the year 2018 was 9198 and the estimated number of newly diagnosed cases suffering from lung cancer were 12741. Seeing the significant increase in the number of diagnosed lung cancer cases, this has become a topic of national concern. This study critically contrasts and compares the chosen research articles (one qualitative while the other quantitative) to understand the impact of a delayed diagnosis of lung cancer.   BODY Qualitative research focuses on qualifying the available information by exploring the understanding of knowledgeable participants/informants. Saddler, in 2007, suggested that this approach is often focused on a specific issue and does not include numerical data. This approach focuses on obtaining a thorough understanding of the topic by collecting data that can be experimented with relevant questions and interviews lead by a final conclusion (Saddler, 2007). On the other hand, Rutberg and Bouikidis, suggested in 2018, that the quantitative approach gathers data in the numerical form (with the help of questionnaires, surveys, polls, etc.) to get the results that can be generalized across the population (Rutberg and Bouikidis, 2018). As per the qualitative study conducted by Tod, et al., in 2008, certain factors can be identified to be the cause of delayed reporting of lung cancer. The background of this study was that since this disease gets diagnosed at a later stage of occurrence, it accounts for 5% of deaths across the Western world and it is inoperable in about 80% of the patients. Tod, et al. conducted a qualitative study from July 2005 to May 2006 within the community centers and hospitals settings of the United Kingdom. This study was based on a sample of patients who were suffering from lung cancer since the last 6 months along with two 18 month survivors of lung cancer (Tod, et al., 2008). The findings indicated that a range of related factors was responsible for delaying the reporting of symptoms of lung cancer. The findings found by previous research were similar to the quantitative study conducted by Sakai, et al., in the year 2010 to study the association between the incidence of lung cancer and asbestos exposure. The significance of this study was to estimate the count of cases that attribute towards lung cancer due to exposure of asbestos and gather the evidence on factors that suggest genetic susceptibility or resistance for lung cancer due to cigarette smoking (Sakai, et al., 2010). The study, in this case, was based on 88 patients who had undergone surgical intervention for their lung cancer between 2007 August to 2008 March. As per Tod, et al., there are barriers which include lack of knowledge about lung cancer, fear and symptom experience that can delay the diagnosis of lung cancer. Along with this, stigma and blame due to smoking along with the non-standard pattern of healthcare availability were also prevalent causes of delayed diagnosis and poor outcome. On the other hand, the results obtained by the quantitative study reported asbestos correlation coefficient according to the author’s and conventional method as 0.45, however, the overall dependence was found to be 0.7341. This proved that asbestos was significantly absorbed in the cases that were diagnosed to have lung cancer (Sakai, et al., 2010). Therefore, the quantitative study tried to understand the dependence of multiple risk factors for the increase in the prevalence of lung cancer while the qualitative study tried to identify only the impact of asbestos in the prevalence of lung cancer. CONCLUSION Qualitative research attempts to answer the questions that have been unanswered and the topic may have a relevant impact on the general population. The commonly utilized methods here are experimental, non-experimental, and quasi-experimental methods (Leavy, 2017). On the other hand, quantitative research uses standardized questions or surveys to collect data that is numerical and can be explained in the form of statistics (Whitehead and Schneider, 2013). With the above studies, we can conclude that the quantitative study helped us to identify that lack of education about lung cancer, poor awareness, social stigma, etc. are the common factors that can result in lung cancer. Along with this, this study helped to identify the positive role of family support and education in preventing the initiation of this disease. On the contrary, the qualitative study helped to relate the comparative role of asbestos exposure and absorption in the lung tissue of lung cancer patients as compared to the control group. REFERENCES Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. Guilford Publications. DOI: 10.1111/fcsr.12276 Rutberg, S., & Bouikidis, C. D. (2018). Focusing on the fundamentals: A simplistic differentiation between qualitative and quantitative research. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 45(2), 209-213. DOI: 10.1111/fcsr.12276 Saddler, D. (2007). A comparison of quantitative and qualitative research terms. Gastroenterology nursing: the official journal of the Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates, 30(4), p.314. DOI: 10.1097/01.SGA- Sakai, Y., Ohbayashi, C., Itami, H., Kajimoto, K., Sakuma, T., Uchino, K., ... & Oka, T. (2010). Simple quantitative analysis of asbestos body using the sediment of formalin injected into surgically resected lung cancers. Pathology international, 60(2), 78-86. DOI: 10.1111/j-.x Tod, A. M., Craven, J., & Allmark, P. (2008). Diagnostic delay in lung cancer: a qualitative study. Journal of advanced nursing, 61(3), 336-343. DOI: 10.1111/j-.x Whitehead, D., & Schneider, Z. (2013). Writing and presenting research findings for dissemination. Nursing & Midwifery Research: Methods and Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice, 372-386.