In this blog, I am excited to share my personal journey of conducting a comparative study on Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) between Nepal and Scotland. At first glance, you might wonder, “Nepal and Scotland? Can these two countries really be compared?” I had the same thought when I began my PhD and decided to pursue this study. Coming from a developing country, I always imagined that a place like Scotland, with its advanced healthcare system and abundant resources, would be perfect in every way. However, when I arrived here, I quickly realised something crucial: even in the most developed places, not everything is perfect—every system has its flaws and room for improvement.
This realisation completely transformed how I approached my research. Rather than viewing Scotland as “better” than Nepal, I began to appreciate the unique value each country has to offer. It was no longer about which one was superior, but about understanding how both could provide valuable insights to enhance IPC practices. With this new mindset, I felt more confident and curious to explore my study further. I became eager to understand how nurses in Nepal, a country with a rich cultural heritage, rugged landscapes, and a developing healthcare infrastructure, implemented IPC practices compared to nurses in Scotland, with its more structured and developed healthcare system, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Reflections on Comparative Methodology
Comparing the IPC practices of nurses in Nepal and Scotland revealed fascinating similarities and contrasts in how infection control is approached, implemented, and perceived. However, before sharing my findings, I must highlight some challenges I faced in conducting a comparative study, particularly as all interviews were conducted online. Initially, I was concerned that virtual interviews might lack the personal connection that in-person research, with field visits and informal chats, typically provides. However, with careful planning, I found virtual interviews to be equally meaningful. The online format provided unexpected benefits, such as greater scheduling flexibility and easier participation across different locations. Recording the interviews also allowed for more in-depth analysis, ensuring that no valuable insights were overlooked.
However, one of the most significant challenges in my study was translation. To fully capture the richness of my participants’ experiences, I conducted interviews in Nepali and English. When the interviews in Nepali were transcribed and translated into English, I realised that some of the deeper, contextual meanings were lost. I often had to re-listen to the recordings to ensure I was capturing the full picture. I quickly realised that translation is not just about converting words—it’s about preserving the emotions, cultural nuances, and meanings behind them. Working with a professional translator and using methods such as forward-backward translation helped maintain data integrity across languages. Despite this, the process was time-consuming and mentally exhausting.
Overall, conducting cross-national research taught me the importance of flexibility in research design. What works in one country might require adjustments in another due to differences in healthcare systems, cultural norms, and research engagement. A rigid approach would have limited the study’s depth, but adapting my methods to each context allowed me to gather more meaningful data. Ultimately, this experience reinforced that successful cross-national research is not about strictly adhering to a plan, it’s about being willing to pivot, rethink, and tailor your approach to the unique challenges of each setting.
Insights into IPC Practices from Nepal and Scotland
I would love to dive into all the fascinating findings from my study, but let’s be honest—there’s only so much I can fit into one blog! While I can’t share every detail, let me give you a sneak peek at one of the most eye-opening insights I uncovered. Trust me, this one is worth sticking around for!
One of the most intriguing findings from my study was the profound impact of organisational culture on IPC practices among nurses in both Nepal and Scotland. In Nepal, workplace hierarchy played a significant role in how IPC practices were implemented. Junior nurses typically took on most of the patient care, while senior staff focused on administrative tasks. This hierarchy not only shaped workloads but also affected communication and teamwork. Junior nurses were often hesitant to seek support or challenge senior staff due to the deeply rooted hierarchical structure. This imbalance of responsibility and authority made it harder for junior nurses to fully engage in IPC practices.
However, in Scotland, the organisational culture around IPC was perceived as open and collaborative. Nurses described a setting where communication and teamwork thrived, supported by an “Authority to Challenge” mindset, allowing everyone, regardless of hierarchy, to raise concerns about potential risks. This shared responsibility strengthened the IPC framework. A key takeaway from this finding is that IPC guidelines alone aren’t enough. For policies to be truly effective, they must align with workplace culture, including attitudes towards authority, leadership, and teamwork. Integrating cultural competence into IPC strategies is crucial for improving nurses’ compliance and ensuring more effective infection control.
A common theme that emerged from my study was the emotional and psychological impact of COVID-19 on nurses. Whether in Nepal or Scotland, the constant fear of infection, the pressure of caring for critically ill patients, and the exhaustion from long shifts directly influenced nurses’ adherence to IPC measures. Despite differences in workplace culture and healthcare systems, the emotional strain, intensified by rapidly changing IPC guidelines and the need for clearer communication, was a shared experience among nurses in both countries. And before I reveal any more results and spoil the suspense, I’ll stop here!
Finally, as I sit down to write this blog, reflecting on my comparative study, I can’t help but be amazed at everything I have managed to juggle—navigating ethical approvals in two countries, conducting interviews in both Nepali and English (and yes, English is my second language), translating countless interviews, and delving into a mountain of qualitative data. This journey has been so much more than just ticking boxes. And as for writing? It turns out it’s not the “final step” I once thought—it’s more of an ongoing, messy, never-ending process. So, here’s a little reminder (for myself and anyone else on the PhD journey): be kind to yourself, celebrate the small victories, and remember, this crazy ride—full of twists, turns, and a few meltdowns—is yours, and it’s absolutely worth every moment.
To find out more about the SHIP team, head on to the GCU website, read the rest of our blogs and follow us on Twitter @SHIPGCU