Canadian National Health Plan Research Can Vary From Highly
Canadian National Health Plan research Can Vary From Highly Sophisticat
Canadian National Health Plan Research can vary from highly sophisticated experimental studies to less rigorous short term investigations. Each research approach has advantages and disadvantages. Among the different paradigms you could use, two of the more common are the “positivist approach” and the “interpretive approach” (consult pages 39-40 in the text). If you were interested in determining if the Canadian National Health Plan was “better” (better in terms of care, coverage, and choice of doctors) than the current United States Health Coverage Plan (Obama sponsored), which approach would you choose to make this determination? Provide a justification to your answer. Remember, your decision is about the research paradigm, and the subject focus (health care plans) provides the context.
Paper For Above instruction
In investigating whether the Canadian National Health Plan surpasses the U.S. health coverage system in terms of care quality, coverage breadth, and choice of healthcare providers, selecting an appropriate research paradigm is crucial. Among the two prominent paradigms—positivist and interpretive—the positivist approach offers distinct advantages for this comparative analysis, making it the more suitable choice for this inquiry.
The positivist paradigm is grounded in objectivity, quantification, and scientific rigor. It emphasizes measurable, empirical data derived from systematic observation, experiments, or statistical analysis. When comparing health care systems, a positivist approach enables researchers to gather quantifiable data such as patient satisfaction scores, coverage statistics, access rates, and health outcomes. These metrics allow for an objective assessment of which system offers better care, broader coverage, and more choices for patients. For example, standardized surveys and health outcome data can effectively compare wait times, availability of specialized services, and preventive care rates across the two countries.
Furthermore, the positivist paradigm facilitates the use of large datasets and statistical techniques to identify patterns, correlations, and causal relationships. This is vital in health care research, where disparities in access or outcomes often have quantifiable metrics. By employing experimental or quasi-experimental designs, such as comparative cross-sectional studies or longitudinal analyses, researchers can generate evidence-based conclusions about the relative benefits of each system. This empirical foundation enhances the credibility of findings, which is essential for policy recommendations and decision-making.
Conversely, an interpretive approach focuses on understanding the subjective experiences, meanings, and social contexts of individuals within a health system. While valuable for exploring patient perceptions and cultural nuances, it lacks the capacity to produce generalizable, objective comparisons regarding overall system effectiveness. Therefore, for determining which national health plan offers superior care, coverage, and choices from an evidence-based perspective, the positivist paradigm provides a clearer, more quantifiable basis for judgment.
In summary, to determine whether Canada's health system is better than the U.S. system in measurable aspects like care quality, coverage, and patient choice, the positivist approach is preferable. Its emphasis on empirical data, statistical analysis, and objectivity aligns well with the needs of a comparative evaluation of health care systems, where clear, quantifiable conclusions are essential for informed policy discourse.
References
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Sage publications.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage publications.
Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Pearson Education.
Lindsey, L. L. (2010). Qualitative research methods. Oxford University Press.
Gillham, B. (2000). The research interview. Continuum.
Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage publications.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage publications.
Babbie, E. (2015). The practice of social research. Cengage Learning.