- Q. 3. Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research?
- Q. 4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research?
- Q. 5. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?
- Q. 8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?
- Q. 9. Is there a clear statement of findings?
- Q. 10. How valuable is this research?
- References List
Review the qualitative research article provided in the ‘Assignment 1’
Critically appraise the article using the CASP ‘Qualitative Research Checklist’ 10 questions
to help you make sense of qualitative research.
Write answers to Questions 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 only. This assignment should be written in
question/answer format, but should use complete sentences, not bullet points. You must
structure your assignment as a series of answers using the numbered questions and headings
that are used in the CASP critical appraisal tool. Tick the Yes/No/Don’t Know box then write
a ‘short answer’ explanation. References from research methods texts/journals must still be
used to support the answers that you provide.
Criterion 1 Addresses the specified components of the CASP critical appraisal tool
demonstrating understanding of key areas to be considered when critically appraising a
qualitative research article.
Criterion 2 Uses appropriate scholarly references to support answers.
Criterion 3 Writes clearly and succinctly in an appropriate academic style, presenting work
in accordance with the Presentation of Assignments guidelines and with correct referencing
(Harvard Author-Date system).
Task length 1200 words
4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research?
5. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?
8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?
9. Is there a clear statement of findings?
10. How valuable is the research?
Place Order For A Top Grade Assignment Now
We have some amazing discount offers running for the studentsPlace Your Order
The research design followed in the article consisted of conducting qualitative research through semi structured interviews, which served as the research instruments. The researcher rationale that, semi structured interviews were conducted on a purposively chosen sample, was done to gather more meaningful information and probing and prompting questions were used on the sample size of 51, to gather such data is effective but not completely explaining the need for using semi structured interviews (Tauber?Gilmore et al., 2017).
The aim of the research is to gather patients’ and healthcare workers’ viewpoint on dignity, and this being such a delicate topic, creating stringent structured interview structures might not have led to the desired unearthing of data (Whiting, 2008). The research otherwise would have been too limited, and patients might not have felt “comfortable” in opening up. As the topic of the paper, is sensitive, and is subjective, and dependant on individual judgement, it is very crucial to keep a semi –structured flow where the researcher can ask questions, modify the questions and make it suitable for the person who is being interviewed, at the same time, maintaining the core group of questions which were built for this specific research (Newton, 2010).
Yes, the researcher has explained that “purposive” sampling was done to select the 13 in patients and 38 healthcare workers and went ahead to explain the different disciplines and specific professions of the healthcare workers selected. Ethnicities, race and gender of the inpatients along with their age group falling between the ages 65 to 91 was recruited (Tauber?Gilmore et al., 2017). Healthcare workers interested to participate, contacted the Project manager on their own and filled up the Participant Information sheet.
Rationale exists as to why inpatients were chosen – their relative age group, their physical condition being adequate to answer questions, their command over English to understand the initial Research Purpose and Participant information document, and the healthcare workers were selected through snowball sampling.
Only once it is mentioned that recruitment continued, till the saturation was reached (Tauber?Gilmore et al., 2017).
In a qualitative research such as this, it is of fundamental importance to understand why certain patients were selected and certain were not, to obtain the right representation of the sample population (Suri, 2011). Otherwise, there are chances that specific biases might exist in the results obtained and reliability of the findings and validity of the sample cannot be ascertained (Higginbottom, 2004). Here the researcher effectively has explained his rationale for choosing the specific inpatients and the sampling technique selected for choosing the healthcare workers.
The setting in which the data was collected is justified as a hospital was selected in United Kingdom, which specifically catered to elderly care.
The data were collected through semi-structured interviews.
The researcher partially justified the methods chosen.
The researcher presented details of interviews conducted – the location of interviews and how the core questions were grouped into two – Individual sense of dignity and organizational sense of dignity.
No method was modified during the study, hence the researcher did not explain further.
The data collected were audio taped and then thematically transcript. Two respondents asked to see those transcripts and no corrections were made.
Yes, the researcher mentioned saturation of data.
Q. 8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?
Yes, there is an in-depth description of the analysis process.
Thematic analysis is used, and it is mentioned the manner in which the final categories were derived after repeated analysis of the coding, then segregation of the relevant codes into categories and finally identifying the themes.
Yes, pragmatic thematic analysis was conducted on the data derived from the interviews conducted by two researcher and 1 student nurse who had experience.
Sufficient data was present to support findings.
Contradictory data was not taken into account, as per the data analysis rationale. Only 1 patient seemed to be superlative about the care he/she received. Though this data is not contradictory, but separate mention is there.
In order to achieve trustworthiness and rigour, the two authors repeatedly discussed on the coding framework and consensus was reached on the themes and the subthemes.
The importance of the data analysis being rigorous is to ascertain the accuracy and the relevance of the data thus received (Bradley, Curry and Devers, 2007). It is crucial for a research to be effective, is that it needs to be valid. And for validity, it needs to achieve reliable results and have a valid research process. Data analysis when done inappropriately, can lead to biased, skewed data which will not give the right findings, and will mar the entire objective of conducting the research (Gale et al., 2013).
Yes, the findings are explicit and clearly mentioned.
Yes, adequate discussion is presented by the researchers where evidence is placed both for and against the findings of the research. In-citations of published literature were cited to support or present a critical discussion.
Yes, the researcher has mentioned credibility the findings, and there was present more than 1 analyst to conduct the data analysis and reach upon the final findings.
Yes, the findings were discussed in response to the original questions, and the themes identified were as dignity and its meaning as per patients, the level of staffing and the impact on the dignity and lastly, organizational understanding of dignity and culture.
When the findings of a research study are explained properly, with adequate discussion provided by the researcher and detailed analysis is presented with the published literature on a relevant topic, this helps in understanding the actual position of the research in question in terms of all the published literature in the field (Sandelowski and Leeman, 2012). Reliability of the findings can be sought through this stage, and this helps in finding the effectiveness of the research as well (Ryan, 2006).
Answer: This research is valuable, as through this research, the authors depict that dignity does not only encompass about what and how healthcare workers treat their patients but it is more about the relation which exists between staff and patients (Tauber?Gilmore et al., 2017). This research is valuable, as it aided in the development of recommendations which can be used in clinical practice and can help in the welfare of elderly care and maintenance of dignity in global healthcare industries.
Though it was not explicitly mentioned new areas in which further research is necessary, but it was identified where focus should be presented in future – in workload planning.
Yes, the researchers presented recommendation strategies which depicted that multidisciplinary teams be assigned with dignity related training and effective workload planning needs to be done to take care of this component of care. The findings obtained are not very race/ethnicity/ specific, and was be healthcare industry (UK) specific, but were generalized enough to be applied anywhere with a sound health- infrastructure.
The value of a research study is tested, when the research generates findings which can be applied to other geographical segments, global industries and help in mitigating the knowledge gap in any specific subject (Fossey et al., 2002). Researches which are aimed at fulfilling research gaps in specific subjects, are considered to be very valuable as they act as the missing puzzle pieces and help in making the knowledge in the area more complete (Johnson and Waterfield, 2004).
Place Order For A Top Grade Assignment Now
We have some amazing discount offers running for the studentsPlace Your Order
Devers, K. J. and Frankel, R. M. (2000) ‘Study design in qualitative research--2: Sampling and data collection strategies.’, Education for health (Abingdon, England), 13(2), pp. 263–271. doi: 10.1080/13576280050074543.
Fossey, E. et al. (2002) ‘Understanding and evaluating qualitative research’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36(6), pp. 717–732. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1614.2002.01100.x.
Gale, N. K. et al. (2013) ‘Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research’, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1). doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-117.
Gill, P. et al. (2008) ‘Methods of data collection in qualitative research: Interviews and focus groups’, British Dental Journal, 204(6), pp. 291–295. doi: 10.1038/bdj.2008.192.
Higginbottom, G. M. A. (2004) ‘Sampling issues in qualitative research.’, Nurse researcher, pp. 7–19. doi: 10.7748/nr2004.07.12.1.7.c5927.
Johnson, R. and Waterfield, J. (2004) ‘Making words count: the value of qualitative research.’, Physiotherapy research international?: the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy, pp. 121–131. doi: 10.1002/pri.312.
Newton, N. (2010) ‘Exploring Qualitative Methods: The use of semi-structured interviews’, Exploring Qualitative Methods, pp. 1–11. doi: 10.1037/e546562006-001.
Pope, C., Ziebland, S. and Mays, N. (2000) ‘Qualitative research in health care Analysing qualitative data’, Bmj, 320(January), pp. 114–116. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114.
Ryan, A. (2006) ‘Methodology: Analysing qualitative data and writing up your findings’, Researching and writing your thesis: A guide for postgraduate students, pp. 92–108. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412984249.
Sandelowski, M. and Leeman, J. (2012) ‘Writing usable qualitative health research findings’, Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), pp. 1404–1413. doi: 10.1177/1049732312450368.
Suri, H. (2011) ‘Purposeful Sampling in Qualitative Research Synthesis’, Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2), pp. 63–75. doi: 10.3316/QRJ1102063.
Tauber?Gilmore, M. et al. (2017) ‘The views of older people and health professionals about dignity in acute hospital care’, J Clin Nurs. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13877.
Whiting, L. S. (2008) ‘Semi-structured interviews: guidance for novice researchers’, Nursing Standard, 22(23), pp. 35–40. doi: 10.7748/ns2008.02.22.23.35.c6420.