Healthcare Research Methods Comparison

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Primary and Secondary Research
Features of the First Article
Features of the Second Article
Comparison of Articles
Another Example of the Primary Source
Application
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Primary and secondary research both provide advantages to ensure that the subject matter is objective and relevant. However, critical differences between them determine approaches to achieving goals. This paper will compare articles on the same biological topic using primary and secondary sources. Differences and special features of the two forms of research will also be identified.

Primary and Secondary Research

Primary sources refer to studies that include collecting original data needed for a specific research subject. Primary research is carried out to obtain new knowledge in previously unexplored areas of science. The researchers themself collect the necessary data and analyze it. Secondary research includes the analysis, interpretation, and synthesis of primary research that has previously been published. Secondary studies are based on already interpreted data, which may or may not be consistent with the study’s objectives (Bruce et al., 2018). Therefore, the researcher must select the necessary information from various sources. As secondary research does not require collecting original data, secondary research costs less and takes less time compared to primary research.

Based on these definitions, it can be concluded that the article (Li et al., 2020) is a primary source, and the article (Mitropoulos et al., 2015) is a secondary source. In the first one, the authors collect data on their own and draw a conclusion based on the analysis of raw data. In the second case, the authors analyze many sources, and collect, and interpret previously published studies. At the same time, both articles have a common goal – to expand knowledge in genomics.

Features of the First Article

The first article (Li et al., 2020) explores the ACE2 gene in various human tissues to gain insight into the infection mechanism of SARS-CoV-2. The study authors compared ACE2 expression levels in 31 normal human tissues in males and females, as well as in young (age ≤ 49 years) and elderly (age > 49 years) subjects using a two-tailed Student’s t-test. Using the Pearson correlation test, they also examined correlations between ACE2 expression and immune signatures in various tissues. The collected primary data helped the authors to learn supreme and valuable information on infection and spread of SARS-CoV-2 that was not previously studied. The scientists themselves determined the data they needed to collect for the study’s purposes. Further, the researchers structured and analyzed data to obtain specific conclusions and make recommendations for practitioners.

Features of the Second Article

In the second article (Mitropoulos et al., 2015), the authors focus on the implementation of genomic medicine in developing countries. They collect and analyze successful examples of the implementation of genomic medicine in countries with limited resources in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. All data used in the article has been collected, analyzed, and published in various open sources earlier. The article also cited various positions of stakeholders, which were also stated earlier in other sources. As an output of dozens of studies, the authors identified a possible approach to developing genomic medicine in countries with emerging economies and limited resources. Also, they established the beneficial consequences of the execution of these programs for national health systems.

Comparison of Articles

Both examples provide knowledge about genomic medicine and its impact on public health. However, they use different approaches and forms. The first article deals with a narrower topic – the mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 infection. A complex research process provides a deep and systematic comprehension of the topic. The second article explores genomic medicine in its broader context. Another difference is the data collection method. Li et al. (2020) collect data themselves and analyze raw data, while Mitropoulos et al. (2015) rely on data collected by others and draw conclusions from already structured data. The principal difference between the two articles is that Li et al. (2020) provide new knowledge that has not been studied before. On the contrary, Mitropoulos et al. give a broader interpretation of the existing knowledge.

Another Example of the Primary Source

The feature of the primary source is the presence of original outputs based on data collected specifically for this study. The article (van Geelen et al., 2020) is an example of primary research, where the authors aim to elucidate the utility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for patients with metastatic breast cancer. At the time of the research, it was not studied sphere of medicine. Like most primary studies, the authors collected over a long period, from February 2014 to May 2019. The authors analyzed and structured non-generalized data to draw outputs, which allowed them to study the topic accurately and give a detailed description of all processes. The listed signs confirm that the article is the primary source.

Application

The ability to distinguish between primary and secondary sources can be critical during clinical practice. So, secondary sources provide broader and more general knowledge on the topic. In addition, minor distortions can occur when reinterpreting the data. Primary research is an indispensable source of information in cases where scrupulous and transparent knowledge is needed. Primary sources allow one not only to learn the conclusions but also to trace all stages of the study, as well as to absorb the author’s methodology and logic. This approach helps to form a scientifically based opinion and act more effectively.

Conclusion

Primary and secondary research methods have different aims and forms. In evidence-based health care, primary sources are considered more valuable and central to decision-making. They contain data and information that has not been previously studied and which forms further knowledge. At the same time, secondary data provide a broader context of the issue.

References

Bruce, N., Pope, D., & Stanistreet, D. (2018). Quantitative methods for health research: A practical interactive guide to epidemiology and statistics. John Wiley & Sons.

van Geelen, C. T., Savas, P., Teo, Z. L., Luen, S. J., Weng, C. F., Ko, Y. A., Kuykhoven, K. S., Caramia, F., Salgado, R., Francis, P. A., Dawson, S.-J., Fox, S. B., Fellowes, A., & Loi, S. (2020). Clinical implications of prospective genomic profiling of metastatic breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Research, 22(1), 1-13.

Li, M. Y., Li, L., Zhang, Y., & Wang, X. S. (2020). Expression of the SARS-CoV-2 cell receptor gene ACE2 in a wide variety of human tissues. Infectious diseases of poverty, 9(02), 23-29.

Mitropoulos, K., Al Jaibeji, H., Forero, D. A., Laissue, P., Wonkam, A., Lopez-Correa, C., Mohamed, Z., Chantratita, W., Lee, M.T.M., Llerena, A., Brand, A., Bassam, R. A. & Patrinos, G. P. (2015). Success stories in genomic medicine from resource-limited countries. Human Genomics, 9(1), 1-7.

Click Here To Order Now!