research methodology in health
research methodology in health
Module 04: Discussion Read the following article, paying close attention to the study design. Benkouiten, S., Al-Tawfiq, J., Memish, Z. A., Albarrak, A., & Gautret, P. (2019). Clinical respiratory infections and pneumonia during the hajj pilgrimage: A systematic review. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 28, 15-26. Give a brief explanation of the topic of the article. What were the researchers’ aims in conducting the study? Summary of the main findings? Analyze the study design, including the strengths and weaknesses. What alternative design would you recommend under the same situation and why? Defend your answer. Embed course material concepts, principles, and theories (which require supporting citations) in your initial response along with at least one scholarly, peer-reviewed journal article. Keep in mind that these scholarly references can be found in the Saudi Digital Library by conducting an advanced search specific to scholarly references. Use Saudi Electronic University academic writing standards and APA style guidelines. CHAPTER 3 Reviewing the Literature Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com. 3.1 Informal Sources ▪ Factsheets, brochures, websites, and other informal sources that have not been peer reviewed are not part of the formal scientific literature and should not be cited in formal reports and research manuscripts Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com ▪ A starting point for learning about potential areas of inquiry is to read nontechnical documents and other files available on the Internet from trusted sources such as the CDC and WHO 3.2 Statistical Reports – The World Bank’s World Development Indicators – UN agency reports (such as WHO’s World Health Statistics) – Annual reports from groups like the American Cancer Society and Population Reference Bureau – Information from state and local health departments ▪ Vital statistics: population-level measurements related to births, deaths, and other demographic characteristics Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com ▪ For demographic, socioeconomic, and environmental data, reports from national governments are often a good source of up-to-date information 3.3 Abstract Databases ▪ Abstract: a one-paragraph summary of an article, chapter, or book – Abstract databases can be searched with keywords or MeSH terms using Boolean operators like AND, OR, and NOT – Limits can be set so that results include only abstracts with particular publication years, languages, or other selected parameters – Databases can also be searched by article title, author, and journal title Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com ▪ Abstract database: a collection of abstracts that allows researchers to search for articles using keywords or other search terms Figure 3-1 Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com 3.4 Full-Text Articles ▪ The only way to truly understand a study is to read the full text of the article – Some articles are freely available online in their entirety as open-access files – Most university libraries subscribe to thousands of online journals that allow patrons to access electronic versions of articles – Contact the author of the article directly and ask for a copy Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com ▪ How to access full text articles: 3.5 Critical Reading Initial reading plan: ▪ Look carefully at the tables and figures, which usually display the most important results ▪ Read the entire text of the article ▪ Review the reference list for any additional sources that should be read Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com ▪ Re-read the abstract Figure 3-2 Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com 3.5 Critical Reading: Validity ▪ Internal validity: evidence that a study measured what it intended to measure Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com ▪ External validity (generalizability): the likelihood that the results of a study with internal validity can be generalized to other populations, places, and times 3.6 Annotated Bibliographies Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com ▪ Annotated bibliography: a list of related publications that includes, at minimum, a full reference for each document being reviewed, a brief summary of the article or report, and a note about the resource’s potential relevance to the new study 3.7 What Makes Research Original? ▪ Gaps in the literature: missing pieces of information in the scientific body of knowledge that a new study could fill ▪ For a research project to be considered original, it needs to have only one substantive difference from previous work: a new exposure, or a new disease/outcome, a new population, or a new perspective Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com ▪ Originality: the aspects of a new research project that are novel and will allow it to make a unique contribution to the health science literature Figure 3-3 Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com 3.7 Replicability ▪ Replication studies repeat a study protocol in a new population as part of attempting to confirm that the original findings were not due to chance Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com ▪ Replicability means that a study protocol implemented in a new study population should generate results similar to those of the original study CHAPTER 36 Citing Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com. 36.1 Referring to the Scientific Literature ▪ Read the full text of every cited article to make sure that the methods and conclusions are sound Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com ▪ A typical article in the health sciences refers to about 25 or 30 other articles published in peer-reviewed journals 36.2 Formal and Informal Sources ▪ In the health sciences, peer-reviewed journal articles are typically the preferred source of evidentiary support ▪ Books, book chapters, and scientific reports published by trusted governmental agencies and other organizations are also acceptable formal sources to cite Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com ▪ Formal sources are scholarly works that were critically reviewed and revised before being disseminated by a publishing group in a format that includes details such as author names, the name of the publisher, and the publication date Figure 36-1 Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com 36.2 Formal and Informal Sources (Cont.) ▪ Informal sources like webpages, fact sheets, blogs, podcasts, and other types of information that are not peer reviewed and formally published should almost never be cited in formal research reports Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com ▪ A distinguishing feature of a formal report is that it does not change after it is published Figure 36-2 Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com 36.3 Writing in One’s Own Words ▪ Almost no scientific articles quote directly from another source word for word Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com ▪ Paraphrasing does not remove the requirement to cite the original source, it just means that quotation marks do not have to be used Figure 36-3 Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com 36.4 Common & Specific Knowledge – All specific knowledge must be cited when it is mentioned in a scientific paper Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com ▪ Specific knowledge is information that is specific to a particular study, such as a particular statistic or a particular laboratory finding 36.4 Common & Specific Knowledge (Cont.) – Because this information is widely accepted to be true, it does not require citations and references in a research report ▪ When in doubt about whether a bit of information is common knowledge, err on the side of providing a citation Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com ▪ Common knowledge (also called general knowledge) refers to information that should be familiar to a typical person working in that research area 36.5 Avoiding Plagiarism ▪ Plagiarism is a major violation of scholarly integrity, and it can have a damaging long-term impact on a professional career ▪ “Unintentional plagiarism” is still plagiarism, and it carries the same penalties Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com ▪ Plagiarism is the use of someone else’s ideas, words, images, or creative work without proper attribution 36.6 Citation Styles – In-text citations where the sources of information are briefly identified in the text – A reference list at the end of the document that provides full bibliographic information for each source ▪ Common styles: APA and AMA ▪ Use a consistent citation and reference style throughout the document Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com ▪ Most of the citation styles used in the health sciences require two types of notations about each source of information Figure 36-4 Copyright © 2021 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC an Ascend Learning Company. www.jblearning.com
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Postinga | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||