Mixed methods research forms the backbone of translational research methodologies. Qualitative research and subjective data lead to hypothesis generation and ideas that are then proven via quantitative methodologies and gathering objective data. In this vein, clinical trials that generate subjective data may have limitations, when they are not followed through with quantitative data, in terms of their ability to be considered gold standard evidence and inform guidelines and clinical management. However, since many research methods utilise qualitative tools, an initial factor is that such tools can create a burden on patients and researchers. In addition, the quantity of data and its storage contributes to noise and quality issues for its primary and post hoc use. This paper discusses the issue of the burden of subjective data collected and fatigue in the context of congestive heart failure (CHF) research. The CHF population has a high baseline morbidity, so no doubt the focus should be on the content; however, the lengths of the instruments are a product of their vigorous validation processes. Nonetheless, as an important source of hypothesis generation, if a choice of follow-up qualitative assessment is required for a clinical trial, shorter versions of the questionnaire should be used, without compromising the data collection requirements; otherwise, we need to invest in this area and find suitable solutions.
Keywords: cardiovascular disease; chronic disease management; congestive heart failure; guidelines; health data; multidisciplinary care; processes of care.