The primary strengths of the quasi-experimental design is its attempt to reflect geographic dispersion and its narrow audiencespecifically, public health practitioners. The primary weakness, in my view, is that of the narrow audience, there is too much of an emphasis on tech-savvy workersmany graying eminences in this field are less likely to react to CD-Rom inquiries, ask for technical advice, or even attend the (increasingly techno-centric) world of conferences.
As mentioned above, the primary strength of the quasi-experimental design is its admirable attempt to get a diversity of respondents from a diversity of locations. Though my criticism remainsthat, specifically, the nature of the dissemination narrows down the field theyve attempted to broadenthe attempt at diversity is often overlooked in modern studies.
With this in mind, I feel the research projects validity was heightened by the use of the experimental design. Experimental research remains highly effective, and the attempt to randomize respondents in order to get a greater breadth of answers is something thats not always easy (or even feasible) within the realm of public health. And though some critics such as Sandra Soo-Jun Lee (2005, p .2133) think the notion of personalized medicine is more rhetoric than fact, the attempt at personalization is, currently, the way to patient satisfaction on both the treatment and marketing aspects of medicine.
I feel that the best strategy for dissemination would be a tiered approach targeting newer hires, midrange employees, and upper management. As mentioned above, I feel this dissemination is more likely to get younger, tech-friendly employees. To this experimental design, I would add informal paper surveys distributed to a variety of agencies. I feel this would address one of the weaknesses of the original studynamely, that state respondents were more likelyto have a shorter tenure in their agency. (Brownson et al., 2007, p. 1903) With my addition to the quasi-experimental design structure, I feel a greater breadth of longer-term employees would be reflected in the results.
As mentioned above, the primary strength of the quasi-experimental design is its admirable attempt to get a diversity of respondents from a diversity of locations. Though my criticism remainsthat, specifically, the nature of the dissemination narrows down the field theyve attempted to broadenthe attempt at diversity is often overlooked in modern studies.
With this in mind, I feel the research projects validity was heightened by the use of the experimental design. Experimental research remains highly effective, and the attempt to randomize respondents in order to get a greater breadth of answers is something thats not always easy (or even feasible) within the realm of public health. And though some critics such as Sandra Soo-Jun Lee (2005, p .2133) think the notion of personalized medicine is more rhetoric than fact, the attempt at personalization is, currently, the way to patient satisfaction on both the treatment and marketing aspects of medicine.
I feel that the best strategy for dissemination would be a tiered approach targeting newer hires, midrange employees, and upper management. As mentioned above, I feel this dissemination is more likely to get younger, tech-friendly employees. To this experimental design, I would add informal paper surveys distributed to a variety of agencies. I feel this would address one of the weaknesses of the original studynamely, that state respondents were more likelyto have a shorter tenure in their agency. (Brownson et al., 2007, p. 1903) With my addition to the quasi-experimental design structure, I feel a greater breadth of longer-term employees would be reflected in the results.
No comments:
Post a Comment