CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY
4.7 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE
4.7.3 Data collection from residential facility’s direct care staff
In order to access the shift rotations, data was collected from the staff on two separate days and nights. The facility appointed team leaders for each shift to assist in staff release. Prior to the start of the survey the Nursing Services Manager requested all 44 healthcare providers to attend the orientation sessions. All healthcare providers except the registered nurses attended, using work demands as the reason for absence. The orientation and data collection occurred in two groups in the morning and two groups in the night. The Tuesday shift participated more readily than the Thursday shift with all healthcare providers (23) except for the registered nurse attending the orientation and all except for the registered nurse completing the questionnaire. On the Thursday all the healthcare providers except for the registered nurse attended the orientation, but only six (6) day staff and four (4) night staff completed the questionnaire. Their verbal reasons related to concern that such activities could increase their workload.
Staff were exposed to an orientation session, explaining that the purpose was to establish their technological readiness and they were shown the same power point presentation, inclusive of demonstrations, as the residents. All staff were given the information sheet (See Appendix 9: Information sheet: Staff) and an opportunity was provided after the presentation for them to ask any questions and, if willing, an opportunity to sign consent for participation (See Appendix 11: Informed consent and confidentiality agreement for staff). The completion of the self-administered staff questionnaire (see Appendix 2: Staff questionnaire) was done in privacy. It took between 15 – 20 minutes to complete. The researcher was present throughout to answer queries that arose. On completion, questionnaires were posted by the responding staff into a provided sealed box. Respondents were told that they would be invited to a feedback session within three (3) months. Cake and tea were
available to the staff as potential respondents and as respondents, to compensate for any inconvenience. Each respondent was given a thank you note for attending the orientation session and participating in the survey.
4.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND DATA MANAGEMENT
The philosophical principles, guiding ethical research were adhered to and the benchmarks of ethical research in a developing country with vulnerable persons were given recognition (Burns & Grove, 2009; Emmanuel, Wendler, Killen, & Grady, 2004). Both the researcher and research supervisor had completed the UKZN Research Ethics on line course (Appendix 17: Certificate of UKZN Research Policy V Research Ethics on line course completed by M. A. Jarvis)
In keeping with the principles of collaborative partnership and social value, the management of the residential facility identified the need for a mental health promotion intervention of video chat (SkypeTM ) where after further discussion with the researcher, research supervisor and residence management it was decided that a survey would offer the greatest benefit to the residents. Initial permission was granted by the CEO of the residential facility on 11 March 2013 and in keeping with the principle of independent review, followed up with written permission pending University of KwaZulu-Natal ethical clearance and the provision of an ethical clearance number (HSS/0863/013M) (Emmanuel et al., 2004 (See Appendix 12:
Gatekeeper permission: Residential facility letter of permission pending UKZN ethical clearance). Once this clearance was obtained the residence management was notified in writing with a request for permission to conduct the survey, followed up with written approval from the various consenting parties (See Appendix:6:
Request for approval by residential organization Board of Directors; Appendix 7:
Letter of request to Senior Nursing Services Manager of Residential Facilities;
Appendix 13: Approval letters: Chairperson, Divisional Manager and Senior Nursing Services Manager) and provided written permission to conduct the survey.
In relation to these principles of collaborative partnership and social value, the feedback sessions to the residents and staff (direct care staff) will be informal tea and cake sessions that will allow for discussion. The researcher’s plan – to be confirmed at meeting on 05 February 2014 - is to have sessions on two different days as identified by the core persons as mentioned earlier, to ensure that all have had an opportunity to attend. The session will focus on the key findings, with a positive underpinning, encouraging discussion. This will honour the line that appeared at the bottom of the questionnaire and in the information sheet and all letters that notified the respondents and management that there would be feedback sessions to respondents three months after data collection. Further in relation to the above principles, the researcher will provide a report post survey to the Board of Directors and Nursing Services Manager with recommendations that could facilitate health promotion in relation to social capital, mental wellbeing and technological readiness of residents and technological readiness of staff involved in direct care.
The respondents in the discussion will be notified of the report and that they can access this report. In the event of a publication from this study a copy of it will be sent to the residential facility.
The survey provided for through its design the ethical requirements of scientific validity where data generated was reliable and valid and able to be interpreted offering information towards mental health promotion of the residents and further afield (Emmanuel et al., 2004).
Various activities minimized the risk to the respondents (Emmanuel et al., 2004).
Recognition with regard to residents and staff’s right to full disclosure was through the provision of information sheets and informed consents that were signed prior to data collection (Appendix 8 : Information sheet: Resident; Appendix 9: Information sheet: Staff; Appendix 10: Informed Consent and Confidentiality Agreement for residents; Appendix 11: Informed Consent and Confidentiality Agreement for staff).
The researcher recognized the possible small risk to the potential respondents being reminded of their social isolation and this causing potential emotional discomfort. It was possible that emotional distress could occur firstly, at the invitation and orientation to participate in the study where residents could realize that the study
focused on how connected they are socially. Secondly, this reminder was during the actual participation where again residents were potentially faced with the realization of their lack of social connectivity. In both instances this risk was managed through the availability of the researcher who is a skilled psychiatric nurse and handled the data collection sensitively and where signs of emotional discomfort were identified, with respondents’ permission referral was offered, to the social worker linked to the residential facility. The researcher facilitated this referral of three respondents.
There were no costs for respondents or potential respondents. Further to this principle of favorable risk-benefit ratio, coupled with the principle of autonomy the respondents’ consent provided for the opportunity to agree to or decline referral to counseling (Emmanuel et al., 2004).
The respondents’ right to autonomy and self-determination were recognized through the provision of a verbal explanation of the survey’s risks /benefits, the information sheet and a power point presentation with demonstrations on technologically assisted communication as well as a chance to ask questions (Burns & Grove, 2009). To avoid coercion they were able to sign consent independently (Burns &
Grove, 2009). They were given the choice to participate or to decline, following the orientation to the survey, inclusive of an explanation of the survey and again prior to the start of data collection as well as at any point prior to the posting of the questionnaire. The questionnaire had ensured anonymity in that no names were recorded and on completion it was posted into a sealed box. Respondents were made aware that once the completed questionnaire had been posted, it could not be withdrawn. The respondents’ right to additional information was recognized by the provision of the researcher, supervisor and UKZN HSS research office’s contact numbers.
Storing of the raw data was on the researcher’s lap top that was secured with a personal password that could only be accessed by the researcher. The researcher and research supervisor had access to data entered into SPSS version 21, by the researcher. Once data was entered into SPSS version 21 the completed questionnaires were scanned to a single disc and will be stored in the confidential
UKZN research policy. Hard copies of completed questionnaires were destroyed by fire.
The research reports or any publication that may arise from this study will reflect anonymity. In line with transparency, respondents have access to this study through University of KwaZulu-Natal School of Nursing and Public Health.
The researcher adhered to the principle of scientific honesty and acknowledged all sources of other researchers’ research or academic writing. In addition to this the researcher obtained written permission from Fiona Shalley, Director of Special Social Surveys HSC, Northern Territory Regional Office, Australian Bureau of Statistics for the use of the Indigenous questionnaire (Appendix 18: Permission to use questions in questions used in the Australian Bureau Statistics Survey). The 6 item Loneliness scale, Oslo-3 Social Support scale, WHO (five) Wellbeing Index and Kessler-6 are publically available scales, where recognition is required. Dr. Sandra Franke, Manager, Horizontal Policy and Planning, Government of Canada, as a form of courtesy was asked permission, which she provided, for use of the Policy Research Initiative Model (See Appendix 4: Permission to use PRI model). The above emphasizes that the data was collected in a credible manner.
Following completion of this research study and in keeping with the UKZN Plagiarism Policy the researcher submitted the study to Turnitin. The return report showed an acceptable 6% Similarity Index (See Appendix 20: Turnitin report).