Qualitative research has gained greater attention in medical research, but it might seem to be unscientific because qualitative and quantitative research methods are grounded in different paradigm.
In this article, we introduce three major qualitative research methods frequently used in studies of patient-doctor communications: 1) in-depth interviews; 2) focus group interviews and, 3) semi-structured interviews.
Each qualitative research method has different or common advantages and disadvantages, and which methods should be used depends on the study objectives. Qualitative research and quantitative research are complementary: while quantitative research explains the prevalence or variation of an issue, qualitative research explains the reasons or processes of that prevalence or variation. Combination of the two methods enables the gathering of more comprehensive and explanatory results.

1) We compiled lists of accredited training hospitals for postgraduate education from the matching program list and of hospitals that employ board-certified specialists in emergency medicine.We then evaluated the number of training hospitals that employ board-certified specialists.
2) There are 1072 accredited hospitals for postgraduate education. However, only 546 (50.8%) of these hospitals employ board-certified specialists in emergency medicine.
3) Accredited training hospitals with emergency-medicine specialists are prevalent in Okinawa, Tokushima, and Kagawa prefectures.However, the prevalence of these hospitals is surprisingly low in metropolitan areas.

In the medical interview portion of the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), we usually use both detailed checklists and a global rating scale to evaluate a student's performance. In the present study we investigated a problem with the detailed checklists.
1) The quality of the assessment of information-gathering capability was investigated in a station for the medical interview in a pharmaceutical OSCE.
2)A video review revealed a 7% error in the detailed checklist assessment at the OSCE station.
3) Following the interview in this study, the students wrote down the information they had gathered. These results differed by 15.6% from those of the detailed checklist assessment at the OSCE station.
4) In the present style of OSCE, the detailed checklist assessment at the OSCE station is problematic. The style in which the students write down the gathered information after the interview might be re-considered.

OBJECTIVESThe aim of this study is to assess preserved umbilical cords as chemical exposure media to investigatein utero chemical exposure. Furthermore, we aim to apply preserved umbilical cords to retrospective studies of the relationship betweenin utero chemical exposure and neurodevelopment disorders.

METHODSTwo sets of preserved umbilical cord samples were analyzed for exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): one composed of samples from 20 healthy Japanese subjects and the other set included samples from 17 autistic patients and 7 healthy sibling of theirs.

RESULTSThe possibility of external PCBs contamination during storage of preserved umbilical cord samples was found, and due to this problem, the study design should be limited to the comparison between PCBs concentration in preserved cord samples from autistic patients and that in those from their sibling. Total PCBs concentrations in preserved cords from autistic patients and their control siblings were compared and we found no statistically significant difference between them (Wilcoxon signed rank test, p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONSThe association between autism andin utero PCBs exposure was not clarified in this study; however, retrospective studies such as a case-control study of siblings using preserved umbilical cords can be a method of choice for examining the possible relationship betweenin utero chemical exposure and child hood disorders.