Qualitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations

The research by Jaam et al. (2018), expounds on the barriers of medical adherence amongst patients who have uncontrolled diabetes. The article focuses on primary health care in Qatar and its impact on persons who have diabetes. It explores and integrates the patients’ and health givers’ perspectives to identify a comprehensive understanding of these barriers. On the other hand, the research by Currie et al. (2012), involves an assessment of the association of compliance with treatment. It also seeks to identify the cause of mortality in persons who have inulin treated type two diabetes. The study involves research on the primary care physicians and their staff, with the aim of identifying the leading causes of the mortality rates of these particular diabetic patients.

The two articles are critical and related to the research questions. This is since they both seek to expound on the topic of diabetes and seek a better understanding of the condition, its prevalence, and the cause of mortality rates.  The two articles will be critical in answering the PICOT question in that they will provide data from the researches undertaken on diabetes patients in various case scenarios. From the findings, both articles will get to give a comprehensive understanding of issues affecting diabetes patients, and identify the differences between persons undertaking educational interventions as compared to those who do not receive the interventions.

            Nevertheless, the articles’ interventions have several differences with the PITOC questions in that the first article mostly focuses on barriers to medication adherence amongst diabetes patients. In contrast, the second article’s primary focus is the impact of treatment noncompliance on mortality in people with type two diabetes. They both have are similar to the PICOT question in that they focus on diabetes patients, and tend to identify relevant information, which can help in future interventions for diabetic patients. 

  1. Method of Study:

For the article by Jaam et al. (2018), a descriptive qualitative methodology was used. This entailed the use of semi-structured face to face interviews at the two selected PHC centers. The study targeted persons with uncontrolled diabetes and their health care providers, who were purposely selected to assist with the study. There was the use of audio recordings, transcribed verbatim, and the use of thematic content analysis. For the second research by Currie et al. (2012), secondary data was used, which is different from the first article. The research relied on the UK general records of persons who had been diagnosed with type two diabetes.

The major difference between the two  is that the first qualitative study used primary methods, while the second used secondary methods to collect data. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. A significant advantage of primary data is that it can give a realistic view and also as a high accuracy level. However, a major disadvantage of primary data is that the coverage is limited, and also that a lot of time and merely is consumed. On the other hand, a major advantage of secondary data is that it is readily available, making it easier to undertake comprehensive research. It is also cost-efficient and time-saving. A key limitation is that some credible information critical for the study may be missing, a factor that can interfere with the credibility of the findings.


Summary of the key findings of each study

Individuals suffering from uncontrolled diabetes encounter several challenges while trying to access the recommended medication. The first article identifies these challenges and how they affect an individual’s ability to access the necessary medication while also providing recommendations on how to address them. They include environmental and social factors, patient-related factors, and patient-provider factors. For instance, difficulties in accessing the right medication or a negative attitude towards the medication affects patients’ ability to acquire and take the recommended medication.  The research points out the need for a series of interventions and multi-dimensional efforts to eliminate these challenges.

The second article, on the other hand, emphasizes the mortality rates that result from diabetic patients failing to take the necessary medication.  Insulin titration and regular monitoring of blood glucose levels are the most common methods of controlling diabetes. However, type 2 diabetes patients fail to comply with the recommended medication which is argued to be the most common cause of mortality among the diabetic population.  Additionally, most patients who require insulin do not attend clinics as recommended and are often smokers who are at a higher risk of getting affected by their diabetic condition.


Information obtained from the two articles plays a critical role in providing a detailed explanation of the causes of the high mortality rates among diabetic patients and how to address the issue. They provide nurses and other medical practitioners with relevant information that can ease their work of handling diabetic patients.  Using this information, nursing practitioners can develop strategies that will ensure a high percentage of the diabetic population acquires the needed medication. These strategies will help in eliminating the barriers identified in article one to help reduce the mortality rates and improve the health of individuals with diabetes.  For instance, they can guide nursing practitioners to advocate for change of public health policies to ensure easy accessibility and affordability of diabetes medication for all citizens. With more people accessing the right medication, the mortality rate among the type 2 diabetic population could also decrease.

Ethical considerations

Privacy and confidentiality was assured to all participants in both studies. Researchers are expected to hide the identity and other personal details of each participant to prevent issues such as stigmatization or victimization along with other effects. Therefore, the names, contacts, and addresses among other pieces of personal information were not included in the studies as a way of guaranteeing privacy to participants. Informed consent by participants is crucial for any research. All participants have to volunteer for the research and not be pressured to provide answers or feedback.  Each participant was first informed about the researches and their objectives before being requested to be voluntary participants.  No participant in any of the studies was coerced or forced to participate in any of the research.

Taking into account the ethical considerations

To ensure informed consent form each of the participants, the researchers ensured that the participants read the instructions provided before signing. Their signatures were confirmations that they had agreed to be participants in the different researches and that any information gathered could be used for the studies. The other action was to acquire an ethical approval from the concerned departments before publishing their findings. For instance, the first article received ethics approval from the Qatar Primary Health Corporation (PHC) that confirmed that all ethical issues had been considered during the research.

Table of Contents


Currie, C. J., Peyrot, M., Morgan, C. L., Poole, C. D., Jenkins-Jones, S., & Evans. (2012). The impact of treatment noncompliance on mortality in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 35(6), 1279-1284.

Jaam, M., Hadi, M. A., Kheir, N., Mohamed Ibrahim, M. I., Diab, M. I., Al-Abdulla, S. A., & Awaisu, A. (2018). A qualitative exploration of barriers to medication adherence among patients with uncontrolled diabetes in Qatar:. integrating perspectives of paintegrating perspectives of patients and health care providers. Patient preference and adherence, 12, 2205–2216. doi:https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S174652



Calculate your order
Pages (275 words)
Standard price: $0.00
Open chat
Hello 👋
Thank you for choosing our assignment help service!
How can I help you?