NUR 590 Discussion Critical Appraisal of Research
NUR 590 Discussion Critical Appraisal of Research
Critical Appraisal
There is an overwhelming volume of clinical research articles that have been published over time. These papers have both similarities and differences in terms of their content, objectives, timelines, authors, methodologies, findings among other aspects. This brings difficulties for those browsing medical literature for the most relevant and helpful papers for their varied reasons. Critical Appraisal is one of the ways through which this problem can be navigated. With Critical Appraisal, research papers can be examined critically and systematically to determine their integrity, relevance, and value (Morrison, 2017). This is achieved by examining factors such as internal validity, how the study was conducted, methodology among other aspects. This paper will give an example of a critical appraisal of two qualitative research studies for a better understanding of the process.
Example 1
The first article is The perceptions and perspectives of patients and health care providers on chronic disease management in rural South Africa: a qualitative study authored by Eric Maimela, Jean-Pierre Van Geertruyden, Marianne Alberts, Sewela Modjadji, Herman Meulemans, Jesicca Fraeyman, and Hilde Bastiaens in 2015. The paper was conducted in Limpopo province in South Africa to find out and describe the perceptions and perspectives of patients and health care providers on chronic disease management. The authors report that the burden of chronic diseases is increasing worldwide. This problem is commonly addressed by chronic disease management interventions that have been developed over time. The problem is further compounded by other factors such as patients’ and physicians’ perceptions, which influence the implementation and the success of the interventions. However, the exact perception of patients and health care providers on these interventions which can either motivate or hinder their participation, successful implementation, and outcomes has not been fully established in South Africa. To address this issue, the authors developed two questions to answer;
- First, how do individuals with distinct chronic diseases experience their encounters with professional health care providers (HCP) and what are their expectations and suggestions?
- And secondly, how do HCP perceive the current CDM and what are their expectations and suggestions for the future CDM?
These questions and the purpose of the paper show greater relevance to the problem. This is because they will unravel how perceptions have contributed to the growing prevalence of chronic diseases in the world and how such knowledge can be used to address the situation.
The study employed focus group discussion with both patient and health care providers and the data called was audio recorded. This offered an adequate method of discussing the perceptions of both patients and nurses concerning the topic exhaustively. The authors have enriched the paper with both qualitative and quantitative research papers to develop and justify their assertions. Few of the references date back to the early 2000 and late 1990s while most of them are between 2007 and 2014. They develop a strong case through the use of available literature stating limited information as the only weakness they found. They develop no framework from their findings.
Execution of the research followed the due ethical considerations by seeking approval of the University of Limpopo Medunsa Research Committee and the Department of Health in Limpopo Province before the start. The results show that what clinicians practice is different from what is documented in research interventions. Additionally, it reports that what clinicians recommend to patients is different from what patients do at home. This is because both nurses and patients hold different perspectives and perceptions on the interventions and also, different interventions apply only to different communities, cultures, and patients. Such dynamics interfere with the success and effectiveness of the interventions. With this knowledge, health care providers can employ the most appropriate intervention and make necessary adjustments to the available ones to maximize the expected outcomes. As such, the research study relevantly answered the research questions and achieved its objectives.
Example 2
The second article is Patient perceptions of patient-centered care: empirical test of a theoretical model authored by Cheryl Rathert, Eric S. Williams, Deirdre McCaughey, and Ghadir Ishqaidef in 2015. The study aimed to determine the perceptions of patients concerning patient-centered care from the care they receive. The authors identify patient-centered care as an important contributor to positive clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. Most hospitals do not offer patient-centered care but disease‐ or physician‐centered kinds of care. Patient-centered care should be offered in the manner and time required by the patients. Some nurses who think they do this confused it with process-centered care. The study, therefore, aims to establish the fact by applying the theoretical model of the Picker Institute and the IOM to collect patient perceptions data on various dimensions of patient-centered care. They tend to establish how such perceptions influence patients’ ratings of care. The authors enroot their argument on the available literature and the fact that the Picker Institute theoretical model has not been tested as a unified model to justify their approach. To achieve their objective, the authors developed two research questions;
- Are the theoretical dimensions of patient‐centered care predictive of overall quality of care ratings?
- Is each of the theoretical dimensions equally predictive of overall quality of care ratings?
These questions and objectives are relevant to the study questions because the will directly determine how patients’ perceptions on patient-centered care influence their understanding of care quality. It will also tell whether care ratings based on such perceptions are valid or not.
The study used questionnaires containing seven dimensions of care developed from the Picker Institute theoretical model. Participants were emailed the questionnaires to give their perceptions accordingly on a scale of 1 to 4 at most. In the end, the participants were asked to give their overall ratings and satisfaction on the care they received on a scale of 1 to 5. As such the method will adequately answer the coiled research questions. There is no specific perspective that develops the paper though the authors cite many researcher papers to support their assertions. Most of the references were published between 2012 and 2000 with only two extending into the 1990s. even though the literature reinforces the applicability of the Picker Institute theoretical model and the importance of patient-centered care, the authored reports a gap in testing the model as a unified model. No framework is developed.
The paper does not detail any ethical considerations adopted before or after the study or during data collection. The result shows that the theoretical model adopted for patient-centered care can give information that can be used to predict overall quality ratings of care. Among the seven dimensions, emotional support was found to be the top and strongest influencer of quality ratings followed by coordination of care and physical comfort. The study contributes to the possibility and necessity of incorporating patient-centered care into practice. The management can identify what is lacking from the data and provide incentives for their incorporation into practice to enhance evidence-based management for improvement of positive outcomes. The results can also direct further research by highlighting relevant areas of emphasis and interest. Therefore, the paper has achieved its objective and answered its research questions.
References
Maimela, E., Van Geertruyden, J. P., Alberts, M., Modjadji, S. E., Meulemans, H., Fraeyman, J., & Bastiaens, H. (2015). The perceptions and perspectives of patients and health care providers on chronic diseases management in rural South Africa: a qualitative study. BMC health services research, 15(1), 143.
Morrison, K. (2017). Dissecting the literature: the importance of critical appraisal. Royal college of surgeons.
Rathert, C., Williams, E. S., McCaughey, D., & Ishqaidef, G. (2015). Patient perceptions of patient‐centred care: empirical test of a theoretical model. Health Expectations, 18(2), 199-209.
Topic 4 DQ 1
Description:
Distinguish between reliability and validity in research design. Using a translational research article from your graphic organizer, analyze the methods and results sections to discuss reliability and validity as it relates to the translational research. Include the permalink to the article in your reference.
Topic 4 DQ 2
Description:
Identify a data collection tool you could use for your research. Consider how you could employ translational research to potentially overcome barriers, which may arise during data collection. Identify the best type of translational research to address this barrier and provide rationale for the type you have chosen. What strategies would you employ to provide an understanding of your chosen type of translational research and to gather collaborative support?
Topic 4 Participation
Topic 4: Critical Appraisal of Research
Description
Objectives:
- Distinguish between reliability and validity in research design.
2. Analyze the reliability and validity of methods and results in a translational research article.
3. Describe strategies to maintain the integrity of translational research.
4. Discuss challenges of research design and data collections.
Study Materials
Population Health: Creating a Culture of Wellness
Description:
Read Chapters 1 and 6 in Population Health: Creating a Culture of Wellness.
Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare
Description:
Read Chapters 5 and 6 in Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare.
Work as an Inclusive Part of Population Health Inequities Research and Prevention
Description:
Read “Work as an Inclusive Part of Population Health Inequities Research and Prevention,” by Ahonen et al., from American Journal of Public Health(2018).
Aligning Evidence-Based Practice With Translational Research: Opportunities for Clinical Practice Research
Description:
Read “Aligning Evidence-Based Practice With Translational Research: Opportunities for Clinical Practice Research,” by Weiss et al., from JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration (2018).
Environmental Health Sciences in a Translational Research Framework: More than Benches and Bedsides
Description:
Read “Environmental Health Sciences in a Translational Research Framework: More than Benches and Bedsides,” by Kaufman and Curl, from Environmental Health Perspectives (2019).
Scoping Implementation Science for the Beginner: Locating Yourself on the “Subway Line” of Translational Research
Description:
Read “Scoping Implementation Science for the Beginner: Locating Yourself on the ‘Subway Line’ of Translational Research,” by Lane-Fall, Curran, and Beidas, from BMC Medical Research Methodology (2019).
Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points
NUR-550 NUR-550-O503 Benchmark – Evidence-Based Practice Project: PICOT Paper 150.0
Criteria Percentage Unsatisfactory (0.00%) Less Than Satisfactory (80.00%) Satisfactory (88.00%) Good (92.00%) Excellent (100.00%)
Content 70.0%
Population Demographics and Health Concerns 5.0% The demographics and health concerns for the population are not described. The demographics and health concerns for the population are incorrect or only partially described. The demographics and health concerns for the population are summarized. More information and supporting evidence are needed. The demographics and health concerns for the population are described using sufficient evidence. The demographics and health concerns for the population are accurate and thoroughly described using substantial evidence.
Proposed Evidence-Based Intervention 13.0% The proposed evidence-based intervention is omitted. The proposed evidence-based intervention is incomplete. It is unclear how the proposed intervention incorporates health policies and goals that support health care equity for the population of focus. The proposed evidence-based intervention is outlined. Explanation of how the proposed intervention incorporates health policies and goals that support health care equity for the population of focus is general. Some aspects are unclear. More information is needed. The proposed evidence-based intervention is described. Explanation of how the proposed intervention incorporates health policies and goals that support health care equity for the population of focus is adequate. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy. The proposed evidence-based intervention is well-developed and clearly described. Explanation of how the proposed intervention incorporates health policies and goals that support health care equity for the population of focus is thorough.
Comparison of Intervention to Current Research 12.0% Comparison of intervention to previous practice or research is omitted. Comparison of intervention to previous practice or research is incomplete. Comparison of intervention to previous practice or research is generally presented. Some areas are vague. Comparison of intervention to previous practice or research is adequately presented. Comparison of intervention to previous practice or research is thorough and clearly presented.
Expected Outcome for Intervention 10.0% The expected outcome is for the intervention is omitted. The expected outcome is for the intervention is incomplete. The expected outcome is for the intervention is summarized. More information and supporting evidence is needed. The expected outcome for the intervention is explained using sufficient evidence. The expected outcome for the intervention is thoroughly explained using substantial evidence.
Time Estimated for Implementing Intervention and Evaluating Outcome 10.0% A description of the timeline is not included. A description of the timeline is incomplete or incorrect. A description of the timeline is included but lacks evidence. A description of the timelines is complete and includes a sufficient amount of evidence. A description of the timeline is extremely thorough with substantial evidence.
Support for Population Health Management for Selected Population (C 4.1) 10.0% Explanation of how nursing science; social determinants of health; and epidemiologic, genomic, and genetic data are applied or synthesized to support population health management for the selected population is omitted. Explanation of how nursing science; social determinants of health; and epidemiologic, genomic, and genetic data are applied or synthesized to support population health management for the selected population is incomplete. There are major inaccuracies. Explanation of how nursing science; social determinants of health; and epidemiologic, genomic, and genetic data are applied or synthesized to support population health management for the selected population is summarized. More information and support are needed. Explanation of how nursing science; social determinants of health; and epidemiologic, genomic, and genetic data are applied or synthesized to support population health management for the selected population is adequate. Some detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. Explanation of how nursing science; social determinants of health; and epidemiologic, genomic, and genetic data are applied or synthesized to support population health management for the selected population is thorough. The narrative is insightful and demonstrates an understanding of how the various aspects contribute to population health management for selected populations.
Appendix 5.0% The appendix and required resources are omitted. The APA Writing Checklist and PICOT are attached, but an appendix has not been created. The paper does not reflect the use of the APA Writing Checklist during development. The APA Writing Checklist and PICOT are attached in the appendix. The APA Writing Checklist was generally used in development of the paper, but some aspects are inconsistent with the paper format or quality. The APA Writing Checklist and PICOT are attached in the appendix. It is apparent that the APA Writing Checklist was used in development of the paper. The APA Writing Checklist and PICOT are attached in the appendix. It is clearly evident by the quality of the paper that the APA Writing Checklist was used in development. Benchmark – Evidence-Based Practice Project: PICOT Paper NUR 550
Required Sources 5.0% Sources are not included. Number of required sources is only partially met. Number of required sources is met, but sources are outdated or inappropriate. Number of required sources is met. Sources are current, but not all sources are appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content. Number of required resources is met. Sources are current and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.
Organization and Effectiveness 20.0%
Thesis Development and Purpose 7.0% Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
Argument Logic and Construction 8.0% Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from.