Critical Evaluation of Qualitative Research
After reviewing the research article “Exploring the standpoints of associated health consultants towards the use of journal clubs as a mean of endorsing evidence-based practice: a qualitative study,” the expectation is that using Houser’s checklists, the article will be critiqued to determine its fit as proper research. Janet Houser’s book Nursing Research: Reading, Using, and Creating Evidence is an excellent resource and guide for assessing the efficacy of research materials in the nursing practice. Evidence-based practice is an essential area needing development in nursing, as best practice is determined by the evidence provided through research. If the research is biased or skewed by any determining factors, the integrity of the entire research may be called into question.
The first checklist used to critique the article as mentioned earlier (referred to as the article in this paper) was the checklist for evaluating the credibility of a research article, on page 23 of Houser’s book Nursing Research: Reading, Using and Creating Evidence (Houser, p 23). Concerning the question of whether the authors have the appropriate clinical and educational credentials for the study, it was determined that, although their credentials are not mentioned explicitly in the article, their team approach provides requisite knowledge and skills and strengthens the diversity of the results by delivering diverse perspectives. There is no evidence of any conflict of interest, nor is there evidence of the financial connection between the study and the researchers (Berger & Polivka, 2015). There is evidence that the article and journal are peer-reviewed, as the article is sequentially numbered, and the issue of the journal is identified by volume and number. The article lists a received, accepted, and published date, indicating that it was reviewed before being posted. It is determined that the article was published in a reasonable time frame, as the article was received on September 12, 2012, and published on April 22, 2013, as listed on page ten of the article. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
The following checklist used to critique the article was the checklist for critically reading problem statements, on page 104 of Houser’s book Nursing Research: Reading, Using, and Creating Evidence (Houser, p 104). Concerning the development of the problem statement, there is deductive narrowing from a general problem to a specific question. In the background section of the article, the author discusses the evaluation of lifestyle interventions on the risk factors that are common in primary health care when provided by community health nurses. The research does validate the nursing knowledge that early intervention in the risk factors for chronic disease does positively improve outcomes. While this will improve patient care, there are uncontrollable barriers to the findings, the primary one being patient involvement.
The third checklist used to critique the article was the checklist for evaluating the ethical issues in a study, on page 75 of Houser’s book Nursing Research: Reading, Using, and Creating Evidence (Houser, p 75). Participation in the survey was voluntary and “recruited via an expression of interest” (Harris, Chan, Laws, Williams, Davies, Jayasinghe, Fanaian, Orr, & Milat, 2013, p 2), and by such, it is implied that consent was given. There is documented approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB), as evidenced by the trial registration number, ACTRN12609001081202, in the abstract section on page one. No vulnerable populations were used, and the privacy of the subjects is intact, as no names are listed in the research article. There is no evidence of any coercion used for motivation, and it is unknown if researchers provided full disclosure. The risk to the participants of this study comes at the beginning of the study, as the researchers are studying risk factors related to chronic disease. No additional risk factors are compounded due to participation in the study.
On page 104 of Houser’s book Nursing Research: Reading, Using, and Creating Evidence is the fourth checklist, titled “checklist for critically reading purpose statements.” This checklist is broken down into four areas: development, articulation, feasibility, fit. There is deductive narrowing noted from the problem statement to the purpose statement. “The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a brief lifestyle intervention delivered by community health nurses as part of their routine practice on changes in the clients’ SNAPW risk factors” (Harris, Chan, Laws, Williams, Davies, Jayasinghe, Fanaian, Orr, & Milat, 2013, p2). This statement also fulfills all of the criteria listed under the articulation checklist, as well as uses an unbiased verb. There is apparent alignment between the purpose statement, listed above, and the design of the research study. All ethical issues seemed to be addressed, and the required resources to conduct the investigation are accessible. The primary resource would be the participants, with secondary resources being labs, scales to determine weight loss, diagnostic studies such as x-ray to determine lung improvement, etc.
The fifth checklist used to critique the article was the checklist for evaluating an evidence-based literature review, on page 117 of Houser’s book Nursing Research: Reading, Using, and Creating Evidence (Houser, p 117). Based on the current year of 2019, this study does not fall within the criteria of studies conducted in the last five years. This article was published in 2013, and based on the recruitment dates provided (September 2009 and September 2010), the study was performed sometime between 2010 and 2012. There is previous research that is referred to in the article, “Our previous research has shown that community health nurses consider the provision of lifestyle intervention appropriate to their role and clients well accept it” (Harris, Chan, Laws, Williams, Davies, Jayasinghe, Fanaian, Orr, & Milat, 2013, p2), which establishes relationships between studies. There are other significant studies related to this research topic that is referred to in this study, as evidenced by the listed resources. The review can be linked directly and indirectly to the research question, and the article discusses using the quasi-experimental design. The analysis does provide support for the importance of the study. The researchers use primary sources to report the findings of their research. Upon review, the study is objective, with no evidence of bias noted. The authors’ opinions are mostly undetectable. The report is logically organized, with in-depth discussion for the need for the research, and ends with a summary of the essential knowledge on the topic.
On page 179 of Houser’s book Nursing Research: Reading, Using, and Creating Evidence is the sixth checklist, titled “checklist for sampling strategy.” The target population is clearly defined as patients with risk factors for chronic disease. In the article, the inclusion and exclusion criteria are both present. On page four, listed in table one, have they clearly defined criteria topics for participation? The sampling procedures used are likely to produce a representative sample for a quantitative study. The potential for bias has been identified and discussed by the researcher. It is not possible to control the bias in this study, as the participants may not report accurate statements (nonresponse) over the six months of the research. It is, therefore, unknown if the sample is unaffected by such bias. The example is of adequate size as determined by power. This information is located on pages four and five of the articles. No power analysis was conducted, as the results were statistically significant.
The next checklist found on page 221 of Houser’s book Nursing Research: Reading, Using, and Creating Evidence, is titled the “checklist for evaluating the measurement strategy.” The instruments, labeled measures in the article, are summarized beginning on page three and listed in table format on page five. The tools are linked to the concepts of the research question and are described objectively. The supporting statistics are discussed beginning on page four of the article.
The eighth checklist found on page 345 of Houser’s book Nursing Research: Reading, Using, and Creating Evidence is titled the “checklist for evaluating a quantitative study.” About the question of whether the quantitative nature of the study is made clear early in the study, this is evident on page two of the survey under both the background and methods sections. The specific design of this study is quasi-experimental. On page nine, “This study adopted a quasi-experimental design because it was not feasible to randomize the intervention according to individual clients or practitioners within the sources” Harris, Chan, Laws, Williams, Davies, Jayasinghe, Fanaian, Orr, & Milat, 2013, p9). Since not all individuals needed the same intervention, it would not be straightforward to randomize. Many of the same questions are addressed in the previous checklist. It is unknown if threats to internal validity were identified and controlled, and also whether researcher bias and treatment effects are controlled by blinding. The authors do provide sufficient information to determine whether the findings can be generalized to other groups or settings in the conclusion setting on page nine.
In the final checklist found on page 377 of Houser’s book Nursing Research: Reading, Using and Creating Evidence, “checklist for evaluating quantitative results,” the reader uses the listed criteria to determine the appropriateness of the results. All tables, graphs, and figures are labeled clearly and correctly, as well as being consistent with the information provided in the text. Again, the researchers offer the results objectively and accurately. The tests used to evaluate the research question are appropriate, as are the criteria used to determine the appropriateness of the measurement of the variables. Only two groups were compared, so utilizing the ANOVA test is not needed. It is unclear if an inferential analysis was used in this study.
Translating research outcomes into medical practice guidelines is vital to the sustainability and transparency of healthcare services, many of which are provided by nurses. To meet the prospects of the patients, families, and society, nurses ought to endeavor to give the highest active, and well-organized healthcare ethics presented. There are extra nurses in the frontline of healthcare than any other healthcare aptitude (Hannes et al., 2010). The Nurse-led study is progressively known as an essential way to effective and practical means of enlightening the patient’s results.
The transformation of evidence can lead to cultural, behavioral, and practice alterations reducing the research-practice gap. The accomplishment of study application in health care is reliant on clinician or consumer behavior alteration, and the enactment approach must embrace this.
Regardless of the researcher chooses to obtain data via a qualitative or quantitative study, there are crucial necessities that are essential to verify the results. Without checks and balances, it would be unlikely that many reviews would be unbiased. The endurance of whether the researcher affects the expected result or outcome establishes the rationality and cogency of the research. However, it is imperative to apply a scale that provides the handler with a fast way to assess the reputation of the study strategy, and therefore, the forte of the study suppositions.
References
Berger, J., & Polivka, B. (2015). Advancing nursing research in hospitals through collaboration, empowerment, and mentoring. Journal of Nursing Administration, 45(12), 600-605.
Hannes, K., Lockwood, C., & Pearson, A. (2010). A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments’ ability to assess validity in qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 20(12), 1736-1743.
Houser, J. (2018). Nursing Research: Reading, Using and Creating Evidence. Denver,
Colorado: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Lizarondo, L. M., Grimmer-Somers, K., & Kumar, S. (2011). Exploring the perspectives of allied health practitioners toward the use of journal clubs as a medium for promoting evidence-based practice: a qualitative study. BMC Medical Education, 1-11.