Critical Evaluation of Qualitative or Quantitative Research Study

Critical Evaluation of Qualitative or Quantitative Research Study Critical Evaluation of Qualitative or Quantitative Research Study Read Stevens, K., (2013) The impact of evidence-based practice in nursing and the next big ideas. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 18,(2), Manuscript 4. doi: 10.3912/OJIN.Vol18No02Man04 Critically evaluate either Study 3 or Study 4. Evaluate the credibility of professional citation, research design, and procedures in a research article. Include a discussion on how this study contributes to evidence-based practice. •Study 3 – Exploring the perspectives of allied health practitioners toward the use of journal clubs as a medium for promoting evidence-based practice: a qualitative study •Study 4 – Staff Practice, Attitudes, and Knowledge/Skills Regarding Evidence-Based Practice Before and After an Educational Intervention All submissions must have a minimum of two scholarly references to support your work. Examples of work to show mastery: •5-6 page paper – APA format. Critical Evaluation of Qualitative or Quantitative Research Study study_3.pdf study_4.pdf critical_evaluation_of_qualitative_or_quantitative_research_study_rubric.pdf ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS Lizarondo et al. BMC Medical Education 2011, 11:66 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Exploring the perspectives of allied health practitioners toward the use of journal clubs as a medium for promoting evidence-based practice: a qualitative study Lucylynn M Lizarondo*, Karen Grimmer-Somers and Saravana Kumar Abstract Background: Research evidence suggests that journal clubs (JCs) are one approach which can be used to bridge the gap between research and clinical practice. However, there are issues which potentially threaten their viability such as on-going participation or compliance with attendance, which require further exploration. The objectives of this study are: to explore the views and perspectives of allied health practitioners (AHPs) regarding the use of any type of JC in promoting evidence-based practice (EBP); to identify ways in which an innovative model of JC developed by the International Centre for Allied Health Evidence (iCAHE) might be refined. Methods: A qualitative descriptive study utilising focus group interviews with various groups of AHP was undertaken– those who have been exposed to the iCAHE JC model and those who have no experience of the iCAHE model (although they may have had exposure to other forms of JC). Maximum variation sampling was used to recruit participants for the study. Transcripts of focus groups were coded and distilled into content-related categories. Results: Six focus groups with 39 AHPs were facilitated. Allied health practitioners perspectives’ on JCs were classified in five broad categories: utility and benefits of a JC, elements of an effective and sustainable JC, barriers to participation, incentives for participation, and opportunities for improvement in the current iCAHE JC model. Overall, JCs were seen as a forum for reflective practice and keeping up-to-date with research evidence, and a venue for learning the processes involved in critical appraisal. Limited knowledge of statistics and heavy clinical workload were reported as barriers to participation in a JC. Strategies such as mentoring, strong support from managers, and providing CPD (continuing professional development) points can potentially address these barriers. Opportunities for refinement of the current iCAHE model were raised. Conclusions: This study suggests that a structured model of JC such as iCAHE’s model is acceptable, and likely to be used with enthusiasm by AHP to achieve EBP. Future research should explore the impact of iCAHE JC compared with no JC exposure, and other forms of exposure to JCs, in influencing change in allied health practitioners behaviours and evidence implementation. Background This paper presents the findings of a qualitative study into the relative merits of journal clubs in allied health, in particular comparing a specific model of journal club with the experiences from traditional journal club models. * Correspondence: [email protected] International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, University of South Australia, North Terrace, Adelaide, 5000, Australia Definition A journal club (JC) consists of a group of individuals who meet regularly to discuss research articles in current health journals [1]. It is not a new concept and JCs have been part of many health care settings for more than a century [1,2]. However the focus of JCs has shifted over the years. It started as a way of sharing scant educational resources and a forum for discussing medical literature and keeping abreast with new © 2011 Lizarondo et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License Critical Evaluation of Qualitative or Quantitative Research Study (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Lizarondo et al. BMC Medical Education 2011, 11:66 knowledge [1,3]. Later on, JCs became part of most postgraduate medical education. They have been used to teach critical appraisal, research designs, and biostatistics and to improve reading habits [4-6]. In recent times, in addition to being a medium for sharing and discussing clinical cases, JCs have been considered vehicles for evidence dissemination. They have been seen as a mechanism for overcoming barriers associated with evidence-based practice [7,8]. Application Journal clubs have been reported in a range of health care settings, and are mostly reported for the medical and nursing professions [1,6,9]. In medicine, the use of JCs has been reported in different specialities (e.g. obstetrics and gynecology, general surgery, medicine) and different outcomes have been described. The literature reports significant improvements not only in participants’ reading habits [10] but also in their knowledge of biostatistics, research design and critical appraisal [10-12]. In nursing, on the other hand, much of the literature about JCs consists of opinion papers that describe the potential benefits of JCs in promoting EBP, improving critical appraisal skills and promoting social networking among staff [13-15]. Traditional model of journal club In traditional models of JCs, the presenter chooses an article at random as there are no clear learning objectives for the JC [16]. The JC meeting generally consists of summarizing the article in terms of the authors’ results and conclusions. Most presenters do not appraise the quality of studies, which is an important omission as a large proportion of published literature can be of poor quality [16]. The articles discussed are not necessarily relevant to clinical practice hence there is often constrained enthusiasm for ongoing attendance. Following the JC session, the article and associated information are generally not reflected upon, and any learnings are seldom processed for use in clinical practice [16]. Page 2 of 11 practice. Figure 1 outlines the processes involved in the model. Integral to the iCAHE JC is the nomination of two facilitators who will act as the point of contact between researchers at iCAHE and AHP at the individual site. The facilitators are required to attend a onceoff training session by iCAHE in aspects of EBP (formulating clinical questions, searching for evidence, appraisal of evidence, implementation and evaluation of practice). Their role is to lead each JC meeting and assist members in understanding aspects of research relevant to the evidence being discussed. The iCAHE model utilises a collaborative approach, where researchers and AHPs from JCs share responsibilities, as defined in Figure 1. This unique model addresses key barriers of access to, and evaluation of research evidence. It also ensures that the tasks of searching, identifying and appraising relevant literature, which have all been reported as barriers to engaging in EBP, are addressed by the involvement of researchers. In addition, participation in an iCAHE JC provides a supportive environment where AHP can increase their knowledge of research methodologies, share experiences and discuss current practices with colleagues, whilst focusing on translating research evidence into their usual clinical settings. Therefore, we believe that the iCAHE model of JC not only serves as a medium to educate AHP with the key processes involved in EBP, but it also potentially assists clinicians to address barriers associated with implementing evidence into practice. Table 1 provides a summary of the differences that we believe are found between the traditional model of JC, and the model developed by iCAHE. An innovative model of journal club -iCAHE journal club In 2007, the International Centre for Allied Health Evidence (iCAHE) in collaboration with the Department of Health, South Australia (SA) commenced the organisation of structured JCs across selected metropolitan and country allied health-care sites in SA. The theoretical underpinnings of the iCAHE JC model are based on the principles of Adult Learning or Andragogical Theory [17,18]. Critical Evaluation of Qualitative or Quantitative Research Study The iCAHE JC aims to provide a sustainable way of keeping allied health practitioners (AHP) informed of the current best evidence, and to ultimately promote EBP in terms of clinicians’ understanding of the theory, and the application of EBP into clinical Figure 1 iCAHE journal club model. * Tasks for the journal club; ** Tasks for the iCAHE researchers; ***Shared responsibility. Lizarondo et al. BMC Medical Education 2011, 11:66 Page 3 of 11 Table 1 Comparison of traditional model and iCAHE model of journal club Components Traditional model iCAHE model Structure Lack of structure Structured Selection of article Presenter chooses topic and article at random JC chooses a topic based on current clinical problem Systematic searching of relevant articles Critical appraisal of the article Not always Always part of JC discussion Support from research experts/mentor May seek support from a knowledgeable mentor iCAHE provides training to the facilitator; provides support to the JC in aspects of searching and retrieval of literature and critical appraisal The findings from a recent case study which evaluated the iCAHE JCs demonstrated that this model has the potential to address the barriers associated with searching, retrieval and critically appraising evidence from research [19]. This preliminary study suggested that the iCAHE JC model is helpful for clinicians to understand how to find and read literature, although it also highlighted the need to further explore its impact on learning outcomes and implementation of evidence to practice. thick description, theory development or interpretative meaning of their experiences. Participants We included participants from two categories of AHPs (as shown in Figure 2) – those who have been exposed to the iCAHE JC model and those who have no experience of the iCAHE model (although they may have had exposure to other forms of JCs). Maximum variation (heterogeneity) sampling was used for two reasons. First, this strategy can capture major variations in different Reported problems Irrespective of which model of JC is in place, there are issues which potentially threaten the viability of the exercise, which require further exploration. These include on-going participation, compliance with attendance, sustained enthusiasm for the process and the impact of barriers to implementation of evidence identified in JCs [20,21]. The primary aim of this study is to explore the views and perspectives of AHPs regarding the use of any type of JC in promoting EBP and evidence uptake in the workplace. The secondary aim is to identify ways in which the current iCAHE model of JC might be improved. Methods Ethics This study was approved by the University of South Australia Human Research Ethics Committee and the Human Research Ethics Committee (Tasmania) Network. Research design A qualitative descriptive study was conducted. This is a method of naturalistic inquiry that uses low inference interpretation to present facts using everyday language [22,23]. In a qualitative descriptive study, the final product is a description of informants’ views and experiences in a language similar to their own language [22,24]. In terms of analysis, therefore, we report a straight description (close to the data as recorded) of the participants’ views and perspectives rather than a Figure 2 Categories of participants. Lizarondo et al. BMC Medical Education 2011, 11:66 allied health disciplines and second, it can demonstrate shared patterns that are stable despite the variation [25]. Exposed participants Over the last three years, iCAHE, in collaboration with the Department of Health SA, has established 30 faceto-face JCs mostly in one Australian state (South Australia). Currently, there are over 250 participants in JCs, comprising clinicians from a range of allied health disciplines. Participants for the focus group interviews were recruited by email invitation through the facilitator of the JC who is in monthly contact with a researcher from iCAHE. The facilitator was requested to assist with identifying knowledgeable participants for the focus group interviews. In keeping with the maximum variation sampling, we aimed to involve practitioners from every discipline, with different durations of exposure to an iCAHE JC, length of professional experience, educational backgrounds, roles and exposure to other EBP initiatives. Critical Evaluation of Qualitative or Quantitative Research Study Unexposed participants We invited AHPs (i.e. physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, social workers, psychologists, nutritionists and dieticians, and podiatrists) [26] from different health care sites to participate in the study, if they had never been exposed to an iCAHE JC. To avoid sample contamination, recruitment was undertaken in a city in another Australian state (Hobart, Tasmania) where iCAHE had not established any JCs. Allied health managers from different health care sites were approached to assist with identifying key informants for the focus groups. In order to maximise variation in the participants, our sampling aimed to involve practitioners from every mentioned allied health discipline, reflecting different duration of professional experience, educational background, roles (e.g. senior staff or junior staff), and exposure to research or other EBP training. Organisation Page 4 of 11 collective perspective and validate ideas and concepts, and thus were the appropriate medium to address the study aims. Groups consisted of six to 12 participants, with three focus groups each for the exposed and unexposed AHP. The literature suggests that this number of focus groups is usually sufficient to facilitate emergence of patterns and themes between and across groups [29,30]. For this study, focus groups were conducted until the data reached a point of saturation, (i.e. when additional information no longer generates new understanding) [27,28]. The focus group questions were semi-structured and broad. We used probes to follow up on responses and promote discussions among the participants. Questions for the exposed group were: 1. What are your perceptions regarding the journal club that was organised in your department to promote evidence-based practice? 2. What are your impressions of how well the staff embraced the journal club project to promote evidence-based practice in your work place? 3. What are your perceptions of what works well and what does not work well within the journal club? 4. What difference did journal club participation make in your practice? 5. How do you think the journal club can be improved to better achieve its purpose? Questions for the unexposed group were: 1. What is your understanding of evidence-based practice and journal clubs? 2. What are your views and expectations regarding the use of journal clubs as a vehicle for promoting evidence-based practice? 3. Have you been or are you currently involved with journal clubs? What are/were your experiences? 4. What factors are likely to influence the use of journal clubs by AHPs? The principal investigator coordinated meetings between the investigators and the facilitators of iCAHE JCs in SA/allied health managers from Tasmania. Participant information sheets describing the study were distributed to staff members during their meetings. Interested individuals were encouraged to contact the principal investigator. All focus group interviews were audio-taped, and field notes were also taken. The investigators debriefed immediately after each focus group. Data collection Data analysis Focus groups were conducted by the principal investigator (LL) and a co-investigator (KGS), over a one-month period. Focus groups are particularly useful when a study aims to explore participants’ perspectives, by capitalising on the interaction between and among participants to stimulate and refine thoughts and perspectives [27,28]. They provide the opportunity to derive a Audio-tapes were transcribed by an independent company. Two investigators analysed the transcribed data: the principal investigator (LL) and an experienced qualitative researcher (co-investigator (SK)) who did not participate in data collection. Using content analysis (Hancock 2002), the data were independently coded and distilled into content-related categories.v The Lizarondo et al. BMC Medical Education 2011, 11:66 investigators compared codes and categories until consensus was reached. The categories were summarised and then confirmed with the focus group co-facilitator (KGS) to triangulate the findings. Modifications were discussed and final categories were identified. Investigator perspective Two investigators (KGS, SK) were responsible for the development and organisation of iCAHE JCs in South Australia. The primary investigator (LL) has been the project officer of all iCAHE JCs. Results A total of 39 (16 exposed and 23 unexposed) AHPs participated in the focus groups. Unexposed groups The unexposed groups comprised 13 occupational therapists, two physiotherapists, five speech pathologists, one dietician, one social worker and one psychologist. All of them had previous exposure to a form of JC (but not the iCAHE JC model), either as direct participants or by knowing about one that was being conducted. Their work experience varied from a year to more than 20 years of experience. Most of the participants had a bachelor’s degree, with very few having completed post graduate degrees (master’s or PhD). The majority have senior position roles and few of the participants had formal training on EBP or research. Exposed groups The exposed groups consisted of eight physiotherapists, four occupational therapists, two podiatrists, one dietician and one speech pathologist. Their exposure to iCAHE JC varied from one session to more than 25 sessions. Work experience ranged from recent graduates to over 20 years of experience. The majority had completed bachelor’s degree, while a few have either completed or are in the process of finishing their master’s degree. There was almost an equal distribution of participants in junior and senior positions. Less than half of the AHP in this group had had exposure to research or EBP training prior to participating in a JC. The perspectives of unexposed and exposed AHPs on JCs were classified into five broad categories: utility and benefits of a JC, elements of an effective and sustainable JC, barriers to participation, incentives for participation, and opportunities for improvement in the current iCAHE JC model. Utility and benefits of a journal club The participants in both groups agreed that a JC can serve as a venue for reflective practice and keeping-upto-date with research evidence. They all expressed that health practices should be evidence-based, and therefore Page 5 of 11 AHPs should be constantly informed of the current evidence from research to inform their decisions. They also believed in the value of reflective practice, which was described as an essential attribute of health care professionals. Participants felt that being involved in a JC created an opportunity for AHP to get together and discuss their clinical practice. It provided open clinical discussion which they thought would benefit their clients. [Unexposed] Journal club is really useful…being able to talk about what you are doing in really simple terms and deconstruct it so you can explain it to other people. Staying up-to-date, I think that is the most useful thing. I guess the good thing about it is that, as clinicians, we don’t necessarily have a lot of time to sit down and look through the literature and so if something like a journal club presents on a certain topic, it keeps me up-to-date … Purchase answer to see full attachment Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool’s honor code & terms of service . Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10

So much stress and so little time? Take care of yourself: let us help you with your task on
Critical Evaluation of Qualitative or Quantitative Research Study
Get a 20% Discount on this Paper
Get Help Now
Calculate the price
Make an order in advance and get the best price
Pages (550 words)
*Price with a welcome 15% discount applied.
Pro tip: If you want to save more money and pay the lowest price, you need to set a more extended deadline.
We know how difficult it is to be a student these days. That's why our prices are one of the most affordable on the market, and there are no hidden fees.

Instead, we offer bonuses, discounts, and free services to make your experience outstanding.
Sign up, place your order, and leave the rest to our professional paper writers in less than 2 minutes.
step 1
Upload assignment instructions
Fill out the order form and provide paper details. You can even attach screenshots or add additional instructions later. If something is not clear or missing, the writer will contact you for clarification.
Get personalized services with Do My Homeworkk
One writer for all your papers
You can select one writer for all your papers. This option enhances the consistency in the quality of your assignments. Select your preferred writer from the list of writers who have handledf your previous assignments
Same paper from different writers
Are you ordering the same assignment for a friend? You can get the same paper from different writers. The goal is to produce 100% unique and original papers
Copy of sources used
Our homework writers will provide you with copies of sources used on your request. Just add the option when plaing your order
What our partners say about us
Check out the latest reviews and opinions submitted by real customers worldwide and make an informed decision.
Thank you!
Customer 452493, March 16th, 2022
Job done to satisfaction. Thank you!
Customer 452443, October 31st, 2021
Looks good. Thank you!
Customer 452523, September 27th, 2022
Thank you! Will definitely use the writer again.
Customer 452443, October 22nd, 2021
Good work, professional and beat the deadline. Thank you so very much
Customer 452445, August 24th, 2021
Awesome work, responded well and clarified everything.. Would definitely recommend, great service
Customer 452445, September 8th, 2021
Thank you
Customer 452445, September 8th, 2021
Thank you - much appreciated!
Customer 452493, April 2nd, 2022
Thank you! :)
Customer 452493, May 14th, 2022
Great services.
Customer 452443, November 22nd, 2021
Looks good. Thank you!!!
Customer 452503, April 25th, 2022
Business and administrative studies
Thank you so much for your help!!!!!
Customer 452519, November 9th, 2022
15% OFF your first order
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 15% OFF Order in Chat

Order your essay today and save 15% with the discount code ESSAYHELP