The general view of descriptive research as a lower level form of inquiry has influenced some researchers conducting qualitative research to claim methods they are really not using and not to claim the method they are using: namely, qualitative description. Qualitative descriptive studies have as their goal a comprehensive summary of events in the everyday terms of those events. Researchers conducting qualitative descriptive studies stay close to their data and to the surface of words and events. Qualitative descriptive designs typically are an eclectic but reasonable combination of sampling, and data collection, analysis, and re-presentation techniques. Qualitative descriptive study is the method of choice when straight descriptions of phenomena are desired.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/1098-240X%28200008%2923%3A4%3C334%3A%3AAID-NUR9%3E3.0.CO%3B2-G

Whatever happened to qualitative description

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(06)68880-6.pdf

Mild cognitive impairment

OBJECTIVE — To systematically review the incidence of posttransplantation diabetes (PTD), risk factors for its development, prognostic implications, and optimal management. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS — We searched databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and others) from inception to September 2000, reviewed bibliographies in reports retrieved, contacted transplantation experts, and reviewed specialty journals. Two reviewers independently determined report inclusion (original studies, in all languages, of PTD in adults with no history of diabetes before transplantation), assessed study methods, and extracted data using a standardized form. Meta-regression was used to explain between-study differences in incidence. RESULTS — Nineteen studies with 3,611 patients were included. The 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD is lower (10% in most studies) than it was 3 decades ago. The type of immunosuppression explained 74% of the variability in incidence (P 0.0004). Risk factors were patient age, nonwhite ethnicity, glucocorticoid treatment for rejection, and immunosuppression with high-dose cyclosporine and tacrolimus. PTD was associated with decreased graft and patient survival in earlier studies; later studies showed improved outcomes. Randomized trials of treatment regimens have not been conducted. CONCLUSIONS — Physicians should consider modification of immunosuppressive regimens to decrease the risk of PTD in high-risk transplant recipients. Randomized trials are needed to evaluate the use of oral glucose-lowering agents in transplant recipients, paying particular attention to interactions with immunosuppressive drugs. Diabetes Care 25:583–592, 2002

A systematic review of the literature

"Whatever Happened to Qualitative Description?" (Sandelowski, 2000) was written to critique the prevailing tendency in qualitative health research to claim the use of methods that were not actually used and to clarify a methodological approach rarely identified as a distinctive method. The article has generated several misconceptions, most notably that qualitative description requires no interpretation of data. At the root of these misconceptions is the persistent challenge of defining qualitative research methods. Qualitative description is a "distributed residual category" (Bowker & Star, 2000). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press) in the classification of these methods. Its value lies not only in the knowledge its use can produce, but also as a vehicle for presenting and treating research methods as living entities that resist simple classification.

What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited.

Doing Qualitative Research

On both sides of the Atlantic, revolutionary claims have been made about the ultimate impact of genetics on clinical medicine. John Bell at Oxford has asserted that “within the next decade genetic testing will be used widely for predictive testing in healthy people and for diagnosis and management of patients. . . . The excitement in the field has shifted to the elucidation of the genetic basis of the common diseases.”1 And in the United States the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, Francis Collins, has stated that the good that would come from mapping the human genetic . . .

/pdf/will-genetics-revolutionize-medicine-2mdlkys5ns.pdf

Will genetics revolutionize medicine

ContextThe free and open sharing of information, data, and materials regarding
published research is vital to the replication of published results, the efficient
advancement of science, and the education of students. Yet in daily practice,
the ideal of free sharing is often breached.ObjectiveTo understand the nature, extent, and consequences of data withholding
in academic genetics.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsMailed survey (March-July 2000) of geneticists and other life scientists
in the 100 US universities that received the most funding from the National
Institutes of Health in 1998. Of a potential 3000 respondents, 2893 were eligible
and 1849 responded, yielding an overall response rate of 64%. We analyzed
a subsample of 1240 self-identified geneticists and made a limited number
of comparisons with 600 self-identified nongeneticists.Main Outcome MeasuresPercentage of faculty who made requests for data that were denied; percentage
of respondents who denied requests; influences on and consequences of withholding
data; and changes over time in perceived willingness to share data.ResultsForty-seven percent of geneticists who asked other faculty for additional
information, data, or materials regarding published research reported that
at least 1 of their requests had been denied in the preceding 3 years. Ten
percent of all postpublication requests for additional information were denied.
Because they were denied access to data, 28% of geneticists reported that
they had been unable to confirm published research. Twelve percent said that
in the previous 3 years, they had denied another academician's request for
data concerning published results. Among geneticists who said they had intentionally
withheld data regarding their published work, 80% reported that it required
too much effort to produce the materials or information; 64%, that they were
protecting the ability of a graduate student, postdoctoral fellow, or junior
faculty member to publish; and 53%, that they were protecting their own ability
to publish. Thirty-five percent of geneticists said that sharing had decreased
during the last decade; 14%, that sharing had increased. Geneticists were
as likely as other life scientists to deny others' requests (odds ratio [OR],
1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-2.40) and to have their own requests
denied (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.69-1.40). However, other life scientists were
less likely to report that withholding had a negative impact on their own
research as well as their field of research.ConclusionsData withholding occurs in academic genetics and it affects essential
scientific activities such as the ability to confirm published results. Lack
of resources and issues of scientific priority may play an important role
in scientists' decisions to withhold data, materials, and information from
other academic geneticists.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/194592/JOC11433.pdf

Data withholding in academic genetics: evidence from a national survey.

The onset of neurologic symptoms in a child who had markedly elevated blood phenylalanine levels during the first two weeks of life and who was promptly treated with a low phenylalanine di...

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM197510162931601?listPDF=true

Phenylketonuria Due to a Deficiency of Dihydropteridine Reductase

PURPOSE. To assess primary care physicians' and psychiatrists' knowledge of genetics and genetic tests and the factors associated with differences in these physicians' knowledge. METHOD. Questionnaires were mailed in 1991 to 1,795 primary care physicians (family physicians, internists, pediatricians

Physicians' knowledge of genetics and genetic tests.

The presented book we offer here is not kind of usual book. You know, reading now doesn't mean to handle the printed book in your hand. You can get the soft file of backdoor to eugenics in your gadget. Well, we mean that the book that we proffer is the soft file of the book. The content and all things are same. The difference is only the forms of the book, whereas, this condition will precisely be profitable.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.2307%2F3342508.pdf

Neil A. Holtzman

Papers

Will genetics revolutionize medicine

Data withholding in academic genetics: evidence from a national survey.

Phenylketonuria Due to a Deficiency of Dihydropteridine Reductase

Physicians' knowledge of genetics and genetic tests.

Backdoor to Eugenics