Conducting and Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research.

Comprehensive knowledge of quantitative and qualitative research systematizes scholarly research and enhances the quality of research output. Scientific researchers must be familiar with them and skilled to conduct their investigation within the frames of their chosen research type. When conducting quantitative research, scientific researchers should describe an existing theory, generate a hypothesis from the theory, test their hypothesis in novel research, and re-evaluate the theory. Thereafter, they should take a deductive approach in writing the testing of the established theory based on experiments. When conducting qualitative research, scientific researchers raise a question, answer the question by performing a novel study, and propose a new theory to clarify and interpret the obtained results. After which, they should take an inductive approach to writing the formulation of concepts based on collected data. When scientific researchers combine the whole spectrum of inductive and deductive research approaches using both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies, they apply mixed-method research. Familiarity and proficiency with these research aspects facilitate the construction of novel hypotheses, development of theories, or refinement of concepts.

Effects of work-family life support program on the work-family interface and mental health among Japanese dual-earner couples with a preschool child: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the effectiveness of a newly developed work-family life support program on the work-family interface and mental health indicators among Japanese dual-earner couples with a preschool child(/ren) using a randomized controlled trial with a waitlist. METHODS: Participants who met the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated to the intervention or the control groups (n = 79 and n = 85, respectively). The program comprised two 3-h sessions with a 1-month interval between them and provided comprehensive skills by including self-management, couple management, and parenting management components. The program sessions were conducted on weekends in a community center room with 3-10 participants. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 1-month, and 3-month follow-ups. Primary outcomes were work-family balance self-efficacy (WFBSE), four types of work-family spillovers (i.e., work-to-family conflict, family-to-work conflict, work-to-family facilitation, and family-to-work facilitation), psychological distress, and work engagement reported by the participants. RESULTS: The program had significantly pooled intervention effects on WFBSE (P = .031) and psychological distress (P = .014). The effect sizes (Cohen's d) were small, with values of 0.22 at the 1-month follow-up and 0.24 at the 3-month follow-up for WFBSE, and -0.36 at the 3-month follow-up for psychological distress. However, the program had nonsignificant pooled effects on four types of work-family spillovers and work engagement. CONCLUSIONS: The program effectively increased WFBSE and decreased psychological distress among Japanese dual-earner couples with a preschool child(/ren).

Factors associated with the mental health status of medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial impact on university students, including those in medical schools, with disruption in routine education causing significant psychological distress. The objective of this study was to evaluate the factors associated with psychological distress among medical students during the period of enforced home quarantine from March through May 2020. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: One Japanese medical school. PARTICIPANTS: 571 medical students. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-administered electronic questionnaires including the K-6 scale for psychological distress, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) for self-esteem and the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) for self-efficacy were distributed. To assess the determinant factor for psychological distress, variables such as sex, grade in school, living conditions, and RSES and GSES scores were evaluated in regression analysis. RESULTS: 163 respondents (28.5%) scored ≥5 on the K-6 scale, indicating a significant degree of psychological distress. Logistic regression revealed that a higher score on RSES (p<0.001) and GSES (p<0.01) was an independent factor associated with lower levels of psychological distress. Multiple regression analysis focusing on students with a K-6 score ≥5 revealed that higher scores on RSES correlated with lower levels of psychological distress. By contrast, those with higher GSES scores also scored higher for indicators of psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified that self-efficacy and self-esteem were both influential factors for predicting psychological distress during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Medical schools should provide support for mental health and educational initiatives directed at enhancing self-esteem and self-efficacy, with a focus on improving personal resilience. In emergency situations, such as that faced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, initial programmes might target students with higher levels of self-efficacy. By contrast, under routine situations, these efforts should be directed towards students with lower self-esteem as primary means to prevent depression.