Critique of Research Studies – Part 2
For Part 2 of the critique, focus only on the following segments the for quantitative and qualitative article critiques
|Protection of human rights||Protection of participants’ rights|
|Research design||Research design and research tradition|
|Population and sample||Sample and setting|
|Data collection and measurement||Data collection|
|Enhancement of trustworthiness|
Complete a critique of the quantitative and qualitative articles that were submitted in Topic 3.
This assignment will be completed in three parts. Refer to the information above as a guide to the information that should be included in each part.
Follow the guidelines for the quantitative and quantitative and qualitative article critiques in Chapter 5, Box 5.2, pages 112-114 and Box 5.3, pages 115-117 of the textbook – Nursing Research: Generating and assessing evidence for Nursing Practice
Utilize a central heading to indicate that what follows is the critique of the articles.
- The side headings of the critique for each article should follow the headings in Box 5.2 and 5.3.
- Note that within these BASIC guidelines, there are additional references to Detailed Critiquing Guidelines found in various boxes in chapters focused on the various elements of a research study report. Use these to expand the research study and to learn specific terminology appropriate to the critique of research.
When turning in the final submission, please put in the following order: Quantitative Article Critique, Qualitative Article Critique, References (should include the two articles, the text, and any other additional sources).
Quantitative and Qualitative Article Critiques
Protection of human rights
It is required of all researchers to ensure that they protect the participants in their studies from any procedures or conditions that may harm them. In view of such a requirement, the study by Pinar, Ataalkin, and Watson (2010) observed this provision by obtaining a written consent from all the participants in their study. Such a consent is obtained upon the participants’ understanding of the conditions and procedures of the study and agreeing to be included in the study (Polit & Beck, 2012).
Pinar, Ataalkin, and Watson (2010) employed the experimental research design in their study, whereby they tested the hypothesis of whether crossing legs had an effect on the blood pressure of hypertensive patients (Pinar, Ataalkin, & Watson, 2010). The researchers reached their conclusion by testing the relationship between the dependent variable, which is the blood pressure, and the independent variable, which is the crossing of legs. In the experimental design, researchers attempt to maintain control over the various factors within the study, that may have an influence on the findings (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2014).
Population and sample
The target population in the study included individuals diagnosed with hypertension. A sample was established through some inclusion criteria, whereby 283 participants qualified and were included in the study (Pinar, Ataalkin, & Watson, 2010). The main elements of the inclusion criteria were that the participants had to be of an age above 18 years, hypertensive, not pregnant, without arrhythmias, and without a history of any condition that would interfere with their positioning of the lower extremity, such as peripheral vascular disease (Pinar, Ataalkin, & Watson, 2010).
Data collection and measurement
The patients’ blood pressure was measured using a mercury-filled column sphygmomanometer (Pinar, Ataalkin, & Watson, 2010). The researchers settled on this device for taking blood pressure measures considering its accuracy level of ±2 mmHg. The patients’ data included pressure readings while not crossing legs and while crossing legs. The researchers coded the data and used version 15.0 of the SPSS statistical software to establish the correlation between the variables (Pinar, Ataalkin, & Watson, 2010).
The patients were asked to sit upright with their backs supported, their feet flat on the ground and elbows on the table (Pinar, Ataalkin, & Watson, 2010). They were also asked not to move or talk as the researchers considered these as confounding factors. The sphygmomanometer was used to take a first reading of both arms in order to determine the difference in pressure between the two arms. Individuals with a pressure difference of more than 10 mmHg between the arms were excluded from the study. The nurses then measured the pressure of the patients in three phases including in the uncrossed leg position, the crossed leg position, and the uncrossed leg position again, in that order (Pinar, Ataalkin, & Watson, 2010). These measures were taken at intervals of three minutes, with two readings being taken at every phase.
Protection of participants’ rights
The participants were engaged in de-identified interviews even as Altin et al. (2015) employed semi-structured interview guides only. In addition, the participants were required to volunteer their participation with an informed written consent obtained from all the participants prior to the collection of data (Altin, Passon, Kautz-Freimuth, Berger, & Stock, 2015). As such, the participants’ rights were respected, even as they volunteered the information they provided and were only required to provide information that they were comfortable sharing.
Research design and research tradition
The researchers employed a qualitative research design, with face-to-face semi-structured expert interviews being used to collect data (Altin, Passon, Kautz-Freimuth, Berger, & Stock, 2015). In addition, the participants in the study, including patient advocates and patient counselors, were engaged in one group discussion, which was also used to collect vital data. The qualitative research design is used to develop an understanding of the behavior of individuals and any influences of such behavior (Nirmala & Silvia, 2011). In this case, the behavior being reviewed is the use of evidence based practice among patient advocates and patient counselors while the influencing factors being reviewed are the various barriers to such application of evidence based practice.
Sample and setting
The sample included nine participants, who included patient advocates and patient counselors, who were singled out through expert recommendations and contacting of the recommended institutions that offer patient counseling and advocacy services in Germany (Altin, Passon, Kautz-Freimuth, Berger, & Stock, 2015). Patient advocates included those individuals who work with the committee at different levels of the system, but did not directly counsel the patients. On the other hand, patient counselors were those who directly counseled the patients.
The nine participants were involved in semi-structured expert interviews in which they were asked to identify the various barriers to their application of evidence-based practice (Altin, Passon, Kautz-Freimuth, Berger, & Stock, 2015). These interviews were recorded and later transcribed to allow for better analysis using theory. The participants were also included in a group discussion, in which they were able to review their level of applying evidence-based practice and the various barriers to such application.
The patient advocates and patient counselors were engaged in individual interviews and a group interview with an expert. The interviews followed a semi-structured guide that was made up of six domains that comprised a total of 15 items. These domains included: “perceived needs; perceived skills; perceived knowledge gaps; wishes/expectations with regard to formal training classes; facilitators and barriers to formal training classes; and socio-demographic variable” (Altin, Passon, Kautz-Freimuth, Berger, & Stock, 2015).
Enhancement of trustworthiness
enhanced trustworthiness in the study by adopting expert interviews in the collection
of data, which is a method that has been widely used in qualitative research.
In addition, the author employed triangulation, which involves the use of
different methods (Boswell & Cannon, 2014). In this case, the
author used two methods, including individual interviews and a group discussion,
to collect data.
Altin, S., Passon, A., Kautz-Freimuth, S., Berger, B., & Stock, S. (2015). A qualitative study on barriers to evidence-based practice in patient counseling and advocacy in Germany. BMC Health Services Research, 15(317), 1-9.
Boswell, C., & Cannon, S. (2014). Introduction to Nursing Research. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2014). Nursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice. Missouri: Mosby, Inc.
Nirmala, V., & Silvia, E. J. (2011). Research Methodology in Nursing. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.
Pinar, R., Ataalkin, S., & Watson, R. (2010). The effect of crossing legs on blood pressure in hypertensive patients. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19, 1284–1288.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2012). Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.