Comparative Analysis of Qualitative and Quantitative Research in Cancer Survivorship Studies Cancer survivorship is a field in which we have made great s

Comparative Analysis of Qualitative and Quantitative Research in Cancer Survivorship Studies

Cancer survivorship is a field in which we have made great strides and one whose scope we have diversified since 2007, when the National Cancer Institute published its first report on the subject. This progress is reflected in the myriad methodologies employed to explore the (often life-altering) experiences of cancer survivors. Learning about the challenges associated with cancer survivorship requires a range of research methodologies. Laidsaar-Powell et al. (2019) and Simard et al. (2013) provide two contrasting yet complementary perspectives: the first through a meta-review of qualitative research and the second through a systematic review of the literature comprising mainly quantitative studies. Supporting these facts is the use of the combination method by Panchea et al. (2022), which demonstrates how both paradigms can coexist without difficulty. Their methods, differences, and intersections do more than advance our field. They are in direct alignment with DNP Essentials I, III, and VII.

The most apparent difference between the two main articles is their research methodologies. Laidsaar-Powell et al. (2019) employed qualitative meta-synthesis, focusing on the subjective experiences of cancer survivors. The researchers studied articles of a qualitative nature to extract recurring themes such as emotional processing, changes to social identity, and long-term adaptation. Their method centered on inductive reasoning, where meaning is built from participant narratives.

In the original studies, the data collection methods usually involved interviews, focus groups, and participant observation. These are typical tools of qualitative research. (Qualitative Research Methods, 2017). According to the DNP Essential I, which emphasizes scientific underpinnings for practice, such qualitative inquiry supports the development of compassionate, patient-centered care rooted in real-world human experiences.

On the other hand, Simard et al. (2013) did a systematic review with a quantitative component. They did an analysis of  research that had used standardized scales, such as the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCRI). Their goal was to measure and predict the prevalence and severity of fear of recurrence. This approach depends on deductive logic and numerical analysis, employing statistical tools to establish correlations and identify risk factors. The studies that were reviewed put the most importance on adequate sampling size, validity, and reproducibility, aligning with principles from quantitative noninterventional designs (Quantitative Methodology, 2017). Through statistical analysis, they identified prevalence patterns and key predictors of FCRI. This aligns with DNP Essential III, which calls for rigorous analysis of data to guide clinical decision-making and improve outcomes.

Comparative Analysis

Both articles shed important light on cancer survivorship, yet they contrast sharply in the ways they go about their research. Laidsaar-Powell et al. (2019) conduct a qualitative study that centers on the lived experiences of actual people, while the quantitative study by Simard et al. (2013) emphasizes statistical analysis and generalizability. Despite these differences, both studies draw attention to the psychological aspects of survivorship.

Despite these differences, both articles share several methodological similarities. To begin with, they both utilized systematic reviews. They applied inclusion/exclusion criteria and assessed the methodological quality of the studies that made it into the final cut. They also had a very clear and pointed research question that served as the backbone of the review: Laidsaar-Powell et al. sought to understand survivorship experiences, while Simard et al. investigated fear-related outcomes. Each synthesized large bodies of evidence to identify patterns, though their units of analysis—words versus numbers—differed fundamentally.

In addition, these two types of research complement each other. Qualitative research can guide the selection of variables for quantitative studies. Conversely, the kinds of insights that emerge from qualitative research can be validated and expanded upon in a subsequent quantitative study. For instance, the fear of recurrence found in Laidsaar-Powell et al.'s (2019) study could underpin a type of measure that Simard et al. (2013) might use later.

The investigation by Panchea et al. (2022) intensifies this contrast by integrating qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis. Participants tested an intelligent wheelchair. Usability was assessed through the System Usability Scale (SUS) (quantitative), and open-ended feedback gathered through participant observation and interviews (qualitative). Their work demonstrates the power of combining methodologies to assess both function and perception. It is a bridge between the empirical and the experiential.

Conclusion

The comparative analysis of qualitative and quantitative research in cancer survivorship yields both clear methods and shared aims. Laidsaar-Powell et al. (2019) give deep penetration into the experience of survivors, while Simard et al. (2013) present wide-angle statistical findings on fear of recurrence. the research methods used by Laidsaar-Powell et al. and Simard et al. reflect the core strengths of qualitative and quantitative paradigms: the former excels in capturing depth, while the latter provides extensiveness and precision. Both contribute essential knowledge to the field of cancer survivorship. As Panchea et al. illustrate, integrating these methods may offer a more complete understanding of human-centered healthcare interventions.

References

Laidsaar-Powell, R., Konings, S., Rankin, N., Koczwara, B., Kemp, E., Mazariego, C., & Butow, P. (2019). A meta-review of qualitative research on adult cancer survivors: current strengths and evidence gaps. Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 13(6), 852–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-019-00803-8

Simard, S., Thewes, B., Humphris, G., Dixon, M., Hayden, C., Mireskandari, S., & Ozakinci, G. (2013). Fear of cancer recurrence in adult cancer survivors: a systematic review of quantitative studies. Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 7(3), 300–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-013-0272-z

Panchea, A. M., Todam Nguepnang, N., Kairy, D., & Ferland, F. (2022). Usability Evaluation of the SmartWheeler through Qualitative and Quantitative Studies. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 22(15), 5627. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22155627