CRITICALLY APPRAISING QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Review the following two quantitative and qualitative studies. You will describe the key elements of each study and complete a critical appraisal of each.

 

· All SOURCES ARE ATTACHED!!!! focusing on the EBP process, the PICO(T) process, and the important step of critically appraising research evidence.

· Describe the key elements of a research study.

· Complete a rapid critical appraisal of each study.

· Write an executive summary that compares the two studies.

ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED SOLUTION PAPERS

Document Format and Length

Your document should be 2-3 pages in length, including the overviews, rapid critical appraisals, and executive summary.  Create a table or other organized format for your answers to the questions on the RCA tool for each study

ASSINGMENT WEEK 3 NHS8065

CRITICALLY APPRAISING QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Introduction

Evidence-based practice involves finding the best research evidence to support an intervention, which is integrated with patient preferences and values and professional expertise, and then implemented. Once you have searched and found relevant and timely research studies, the next step is to evaluate the quality of their methods, design, and other elements and to explore the application of the evidence they provide in different scenarios and settings. It is of paramount importance to correctly identify the type of research methods used in the study—quantitative or qualitative, or a mixture of both—and to evaluate the study to ensure those methods are high-quality, valid, reliable, and accurate. Consequently, doctoral professionals must develop a working knowledge of how to identify and critically appraise specific, important elements of both quantitative and qualitative research studies. Rapid critical appraisal tools assist in developing this skill. CRITICALLY APPRAISING QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Preparation

· All SOURCES ARE ATTACHED!!!! focusing on the EBP process, the PICO(T) process, and the important step of critically appraising research evidence.

· Review the following two quantitative and qualitative studies. You will describe the key elements of each study and complete a critical appraisal of each.

. Dorleijn, D. M. J., Luijsterburg, P. A. J., Reijman, M., Kloppenburg, M., Verhaar, J. A. N., Bindels, P. J. E., . . . Bierma-Zeinstra, S. (2018).  Intramuscular glucocorticoid injection versus placebo injection in hip osteoarthritis: A 12-week blinded randomised controlled trial.  Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 77(6), 875.

. Howson, A., Turell, W., & Roc, A. (2018).  Perceived self-efficacy in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas: Qualitative outcomes in patient-directed education.  Health Education Journal, 77(4), 430–443.

· Locate the following tools, found in Appendix B in your Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare textbook. You will use these tools to complete the appropriate rapid critical appraisal for each study. Choose the tool that matches the methods and design of each study.

. Rapid Critical Appraisal Questions for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), page 711.

· RAPID CRITICAL APPRAISAL QUESTIONS FOR RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS (RCTS)

VALIDITY
1.Are the results of the study valid?
a.Were the participants randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups?	Yes	No	Unknown
b.Was random assignment concealed from the individuals who were first enrolling participants into the study?	Yes	No	Unknown
c.Were the participants and providers blind to the study group? CRITICALLY APPRAISING QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH	Yes	No	Unknown
d.Were reasons given to explain why participants did not complete the study?	Yes	No	Unknown
e.Were the follow-up assessments conducted long enough to fully study the effects of the intervention?	Yes	No	Unknown
f.Were the participants analyzed in the group to which they were randomly assigned?	Yes	No	Unknown
g.Was the control group appropriate?	Yes	No	Unknown
h.Were the instruments used to measure the outcomes valid and reliable?	Yes	No	Unknown
i.Were the participants in each of the groups similar on demographic and baseline clinical variables?	Yes	No	Unknown
RELIABILITY
2.What are the results?
a.How large is the intervention or treatment effect (NNT, NNH, effect size?	____________________
b.How precise is the intervention or treatment (CI)?	____________________
APPLICABILITY
3.Will the results help me in caring for my patients?
a.Were all clinically important outcomes measured?	Yes	No	Unknown
b.What are the risks and benefits of the treatment?	____________________
c.Is the treatment feasible in my clinical setting?	Yes	No	Unknown
d.What are my patient’s/family’s values and expectations for the outcome that is trying to be prevented and the treatment itself?	____________________
Would you use the study results in your practice to make a difference in patient outcomes? •If yes, how? •If yes, why? •If no, why not?
Additional Comments/Reflections:
Recommendation for article use within a body of evidence:

· © Fineout-Overholt & Melnyk, 2005. This form may be used for educational, practice change, and research purposes without permission.

· p. 711

.

. Rapid Critical Appraisal Questions for Qualitative Evidence, pages 715–716.

· RAPID CRITICAL APPRAISAL QUESTIONS FOR QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE

VALIDITY
1.Are the results of the study valid (i.e., trustworthy and credible)?
a.How were study participants chosen?
b.How were accuracy and completeness of data assured?
c.How plausible/believable are the results?
i.Are implications of the research stated?	Yes	No	Unknown
1.May new insights increase sensitivity to others’ needs?	Yes	No	Unknown
2.May understandings enhance situational competence?	Yes	No	Unknown
d.What is the effect on the reader?
1.Are results plausible and believable?	Yes	No	Unknown
2.Is the reader imaginatively drawn into the experience?	Yes	No	Unknown
RELIABILITY
2.What were the results?
a.Does the research approach fit the purpose of the study?	Yes	No	Unknown
i.How does the researcher identify the study approach?	Yes	No	Unknown
1.Are language and concepts consistent with the approach?	Yes	No	Unknown
2.Are data collection and analysis techniques appropriate?	Yes	No	Unknown
ii.Is the significance/importance of the study explicit?	Yes	No	Unknown
1.Does review of the literature support a need for the study?	Yes	No	Unknown
2.What is the study’s potential contribution?
iii.Is the sampling strategy clear and guided by study needs?	Yes	No	Unknown
1.Does the researcher control selection of the sample?	Yes	No	Unknown
2.Do sample composition and size reflect study needs?	Yes	No	Unknown
b.Is the phenomenon (human experience) clearly identified?
i.Are data collection procedures clear?	Yes	No	Unknown
1.Are sources and means of verifying data explicit?	Yes	No	Unknown
2.Are researcher roles and activities explained?	Yes	No	Unknown
ii.Are data analysis procedures described?	Yes	No	Unknown
1.Does analysis guide direction of sampling and when it ends?	Yes	No	Unknown
2.Are data management processes described?	Yes	No	Unknown
c.What are the reported results (description or interpretation)?
i.How are specific findings presented?
1.Is presentation logical, consistent, and easy to follow?	Yes	No	Unknown
2.Do quotes fit the findings they are intended to illustrate?	Yes	No	Unknown
ii.How are overall results presented?
1.Are meanings derived from data described in context?	Yes	No	Unknown
2.Does the writing effectively promote understanding?	Yes	No	Unknown

· p. 715

· p. 716

APPLICABILITY
3.Will the results help me in caring for my patients?
a.Are the results relevant to persons in similar situations?	Yes	No	Unknown
b.Are the results relevant to patient values and/or circumstances?	Yes	No	Unknown
c.How may the results be applied in clinical practice?
Would you use the study results in your practice to make a difference in patient outcomes? •If yes, how? •If yes, why? •If no, why not?
Additional Comments/Reflections:
Recommendation for article use within a body of evidence:

· © Fineout-Overholt & Melnyk, 2005. This form may be used for educational, practice change, and research purposes without permission.

· p. 716

.

Instructions

Write a paper in which you:

· Describe the key elements of a research study.

· Complete a rapid critical appraisal of each study.

· Write an executive summary that compares the two studies.

Document Format and Length

Your document should be 2-3 pages in length, including the overviews, rapid critical appraisals, and executive summary. CRITICALLY APPRAISING QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Supporting Evidence

Include at least two resources, other than the course textbook, to support your critical appraisals. Provide in-text citations and references in APA format for each study, the critical appraisal tools, and other resources used.

Assignment Grading

The following requirements correspond to the scoring guide criteria, so be sure to address each point. Read the performance-level descriptions in the scoring guide for each criterion to see how your work will be assessed.

· Describe the key elements of a research study.

. Include the study’s purpose, methods, design, results, and any other aspects of the study you think are noteworthy.

. Consider how the study contributes to the scholarly literature.

· Evaluate the quality of each study, using the appropriate rapid critical appraisal tool (RCA).

. Create a table or other organized format for your answers to the questions on the RCA tool for each study.

. What evidence supports your assertions and conclusions?

· Compare a qualitative and quantitative study’s quality, significance, and the practical application of results (evidence) in a health care setting.

. Consider the following questions to guide the comparison of these studies in your executive summary:

. Which study provides the best overall evidence? What elements in the study led you to this conclusion?

. Which study provides subjective information that could be integrated to make positive changes to services, processes, systems, or patient care?

. What is the significance of each study’s results in a hospital setting? How do the results affect patients?

. How could the evidence found in each study be applied in different health care settings? In the overall health care industry?

· Support main points, assertions, arguments, or conclusions with relevant and credible evidence.

· Competency 2: Differentiate among qualitative, quantitative, and mixed research design, methods, and evidence for health care and public health.CRITICALLY APPRAISING QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

. Describe the key elements of a research study.

· Competency 3: Evaluate the design, methods, results, and overall quality of qualitative research methods and results, within the context of evidence-based practice.

. Evaluate the quality of a research study, using the appropriate critical appraisal tool.

· Competency 4: Interpret the practical significance of quantitative and qualitative health care data analyses and results, using the evidence-based practice process.

. Compare a qualitative and quantitative study’s quality, significance, and the practical application of results (evidence) in a health care setting.

· Competency 5: Produce original, written work, in compliance with writing standards, that is a creative synthesis of information from credible sources.

. Support main points, assertions, arguments, or conclusions with relevant and credible evidence.

Preparation

· Review the following two quantitative and qualitative studies. You will describe the key elements of each study and complete a critical appraisal of each.

. Dorleijn, D. M. J., Luijsterburg, P. A. J., Reijman, M., Kloppenburg, M., Verhaar, J. A. N., Bindels, P. J. E., . . . Bierma-Zeinstra, S. (2018). Intramuscular glucocorticoid injection versus placebo injection in hip osteoarthritis: A 12-week blinded randomised controlled trial. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 77(6), 875.

. Howson, A., Turell, W., & Roc, A. (2018). Perceived self-efficacy in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas: Qualitative outcomes in patient-directed education. Health Education Journal, 77(4), 430–443. CRITICALLY APPRAISING QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH