In our newly come columns, we expl...

In our newly come columns, we explored a number of research myths. This month we explore another prevalent research myth--all questions can be answered by the agency of research. The purpose of research is to generate of recent origin knowledge; however, there are many questions that are simply not amenable to the research process

There are many factors to consider before embarking upon a research project. The researcher first must assess the research literature and determine whether research exists that adequately answers the question. If the literature does not provide a clear answer, then the nearest consideration is whether research is the in the greatest degree appropriate method for answering the specific question.

THE intention OF RESEARCH

The first point to hold fast in mind is that research is not directioned to prove an idea or convince someone about something. When you hear a statement of that kind as, "We need to do a contemplation to convince staff members that they are doing something incorrectly," a r flag should move up and alarms should unhurt in your mind. These objectives of convincing or proving are not consistent with the research proces A single research brew never "proves" anything. In fact, classical statistical theory is based onward the premise that nothing is always proven; statistical analysis only be subservient tos to disprove the null hypothesis. In actuality, research findings may support a premise or research hypothesis, unless proof is never fully supported with 100% assurance.

Research, although useful in many situations, simply is not the strategy to clear or obtain answers for certain emblems of questions or problems. Research is simply one approach that may be used to find answers to enigmas encountered in health care. There are many instances in which research findings solitary confound the issues. Other strategies for answering questions include an ethical or policy analysis and improvement science. These orders can be extremely useful when trying to answer more [i]or[/i] less health care-related questions.

WHAT CONSTITUTES A RESEARCH QUESTION?

An example of a question that is not amenable to research is whether physician-assisted suicide should become legal. Research is not going to provide the becoming direction for informed decision making related to this question. This is a network ethical and political issue, and an ethical or policy analysis would provide more clarity around the question. Clearly, matters that must be addressed include the pro and studys related to physician-assisted suicide and the identification of the educational destitutions of legislators, health care consumer and voter A research inquiry would not provide the necessary data to help clear this problem because it is not a research question. Thus, when stand athwart the path ofed with a question or issue in clinical practice, the first thing to do is ask yourself the following

* What is the best way to answer this question?

* What is the issue at hand?

In the physician-assisted suicide example, there are a related research questions that might be asked.

* What are patients' attitudes regarding physician-assisted suicide?

* What are health care providers' attitudes and beliefs regarding physician-assisted suicide?

* What factors contribute to asks for physician-assisted suicide?

* What is the experience of families whose lov commons participate in physician-assisted suicide?

None of these questions answer the original question of whether physician-assisted suicide should be legalized; however, research draws that address these questions could contribute to our general knowledge and understanding of physician-assisted suicide.

ETHICAL AND MORAL ISSUES IN RESEARCH

Researchers always must consider the ethical and moral aspects of any propos application of mind Decades ago, the question was raised as to whether cigarette smoking caused lung cancer. Perhaps the principally efficient way to have obtained an answer would have been to implement a well-designed and controll scientific experiment. In this instance, human make liables would have been randomly assigned to smoking and nonsmoking assign places tos Individuals assigned to the smoking dispose could have been required to sooty vapor a certain number of cigarettes each day. Then, through the whole extent of time, the researchers could have monitored health outcomes

This approach probably would have originateed in quick, accurate answers, nevertheless at the same time, it would have been totally unethical. wherefore would any researcher knowingly show up human subjects to a substance that might cause cancer? To learn more about the relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, researchers have had to monitor the health results of known smokers. This approach initially l to questions about the reliability and validity of the ends Eventually sufficient data were infered and there was increased confidence in the conclusion that cigarette smoking was highly associated with the incidence of lung cancer and other diseases.

As another dimension of this intricate web issue, we are just now learning for what cause much tobacco companies did know about the addictive nature of nicotine and the health risks facing smokers(1) With this additional information, is more research warranted? No--as policy makers deal with the difficult nearest steps in the continuing straggle throughout tobacco control and legislation, it is clear that the tools of policy and ethical analysis will provide the necessary data for informed decision making.