NURS 6052 Week 7 Assignment: Critical Appraisal of Research
NURS 6052 Week 7 Assignment: 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.
Realtors rely on detailed property appraisals—conducted using appraisal tools—to assign market values to houses and other properties. These values are then presented to buyers and sellers to set prices and initiate offers.
Research appraisal is not that different. The critical appraisal process utilizes formal appraisal tools to assess the results of research to determine value to the context at hand. Evidence-based practitioners often present these findings to make the case for specific courses of action.
In this Assignment, you will use appraisal tools to conduct a critical appraisal of published research. You will then present the results of your efforts.
To Prepare:
Review the Resources and consider the importance of critically appraising research evidence.
Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and analyzed in Module 3.
Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tools document provided in the Resources.
The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)
Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research
Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected and analyzed by completing the Critical Appraisal Tools document. Be sure to include:
An evaluation table
A levels of evidence table
An outcomes synthesis table
Part 4B: Critical Appraisal of Research
Based on your appraisal, in a 1-2-page critical appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.
Grading Rubric
| Performance Category | 100% or highest level of performance
100% 16 points |
Very good or high level of performance
88% 14 points |
Acceptable level of performance
81% 13 points |
Inadequate demonstration of expectations
68% 11 points |
Deficient level of performance
56% 9 points
|
Failing level
of performance 55% or less 0 points |
| Total Points Possible= 50 | 16 Points | 14 Points | 13 Points | 11 Points | 9 Points | 0 Points |
| Scholarliness
Demonstrates achievement of scholarly inquiry for professional and academic topics. |
Presentation of information was exceptional and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three or more of the following elements
|
| 16 Points | 14 Points | 13 Points | 11 Points | 9 Points | 0 Points | |
| Application of Course Knowledge
Demonstrate the ability to analyze and apply principles, knowledge and information learned in the outside readings and relate them to real-life professional situations |
Presentation of information was exceptional and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in the all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three of the following elements
|
| 10 Points | 9 Points | 6 Points | 0 Points | |||
| Interactive Dialogue
Initial post should be a minimum of 300 words (references do not count toward word count) The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each (references do not count toward word count) Responses are substantive and relate to the topic. |
Demonstrated all of the following:
|
Demonstrated 3 of the following:
|
Demonstrated 2 of the following:
|
Demonstrated 1 or less of the following:
|
||
| 8 Points | 7 Points | 6 Points | 5 Points | 4 Points | 0 Points | |
| Grammar, Syntax, APA
Points deducted for improper grammar, syntax and APA style of writing. The source of information is the APA Manual 6th Edition Error is defined to be a unique APA error. Same type of error is only counted as one error. |
The following was present:
AND
AND
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
| 0 Points Deducted | 5 Points Lost | |||||
| Participation
Requirements |
Demonstrated the following:
|
Failed to demonstrate the following:
|
||||
| 0 Points Lost | 5 Points Lost | |||||
| Due Date Requirements | Demonstrated all of the following:
A minimum of one peer and one instructor responses are to be posted within the course no later than Sunday, 11:59 pm MT. |
Demonstrates one or less of the following.
A minimum of one peer and one instructor responses are to be posted within the course no later than Sunday, 11:59 pm MT. |