NURS 200 Evidence Based Nursing Research

Question

Directions: Complete this module’s readings (carefully read Melnyk and the Letts’ Guidelines for Critical Review of Qualitative Studies (see Read section) and then upload a concise one to two-page document to turnitin link below after addressing the following:

• Explain the major criteria for appraising the methodological rigor of qualitative evidence and how these appraisal criteria compare to those used for appraising the methodological rigor of quantitative evidence.

• Identify one issue surrounding the evaluation of a qualitative study (e.g. type of qualitative study chosen, data collection procedures, ethical considerations, sampling strategy, data analysis techniques, disclosing researcher bias/role in research or etc.) which could lead to an erroneous conclusion about the trustworthiness of a qualitative study.

• Explain how you will use qualitative evidence in your future practice.

Answer

Criteria for Appraising the Methodological rigor of Qualitative Evidence.

For a successful appraisal of methodological rigor of qualitative evidence in the medical ICU the medical team must understands different criteria. Knowing the purpose is the first criterion and it involves knowing more about patients in order to give the most appropriate care. Being in a position to review literature and using study design like phenomenology are two criteria that help in skillfully helps in understanding the patient’s previous medical history and interpreting their past experiences. Another criteria is theoretical perspective that encompasses creating a picture of a patient’s current state that involves descriptive clarity in defining the ethical relationship between the researcher and patient (Munn, Porritt, Lockwood, Aromataris, & Pearson, 2014).

Analytical rigor is significant as it involves using appropriate inductive methods in combining different sources of information concerning a patient to reach to a conclusion (Wang & Reio, 2017). Kylie, Craig, Edoardo and Alan (2014) agree that dependability and credibility influence the confidence of qualitative synthesis findings thus forming important aspects to consider. In qualitative research, credibility is concerned with the accurate representation of findings and it holds the internal validity of the qualitative study (Porrit, Gomersall & Lockwood, 2014).

There must be a close observation of a patient’s behavior or reaction, interviews (direct questions with patient), document reviews (patient’s medical history), and focus groups whereby the issue the family of the patient may be included. Logic, traceability and clarity are three criteria that inform the dependability of qualitative methods (Porrit et al, 2014). These aspects combined with Conformability direct the accountability to patients, families and colleagues. All these could be termed as procedural rigor since it involves communicating with patients, families and reviewing documents.       

Comparison between qualitative and quantitative research methods.

Qualitative methods involve document analysis (analyzing document related topics) while quantitative methods involve longitudinal data collected ovee a long period of time.

Focus groups are used in qualitative evidence while in quantitative evidence, there’s Quasi-experimental study which includes pre and post interventions.

Unstructured interviews are used in qualitative research having a broad open-ended subject while in quantitative there’s randomised controlled trials with definitive results involving a predetermined outcome as a topic is given to a random group.  

Observational study is used in qualitative research which is watching interactions in or between individuals while case study is used in quantitative and involves analysing outcomes.

Issues surrounding the evaluation of a qualitative study.

A data collection method like interviewing may lead to erroneous interpretation of data in the ICU department. Sometimes the patients and their families are confused, unconscious or in so much pain. That way, incorrect data may be collected and conclusion drawn from the data may be wrong, leading to wrong results on the patient (O’brien, Harris, Beckman, Reed, & Cook, 2014)

Use of qualitative evidence in future practice.

According to Ford (2018) qualitative methods inform the acquirement of knowledge pertinent to nursing practice and health institutions among other fields in the present day. The evidence qualitative research can be used to inform important decision making regarding a patient, readmitted into the ICU department (Lewin et al., 2015). During emergencies, the probability of losing life is high when medical intervention is not done promptly because of lack of evidence.

Conclusion

For both qualitative and quantitative evidence one must understand different criteria in order to appraise them. For qualitative methods, the purpose, method of literature review, and theoretical perspective are among the methods that can apply. Quantitative methods differ from qualitative in different ways in the use of document analysis, focus groups, interviews and observational study among others. Errors may arise in the medical ICU should the poor interpretation of data especially from interviews.  Qualitative evidence is useful in future in important decision making regarding reoccurrence of certain conditions.

References

Ford, S. (2018). Qualitative research and its role in nursing knowledge. Retrieved from https://www.nursingtimes.net/clinical-archive/public-health/qualitative-research-and-its-role-in-nursing-knowledge/203229.article

Lewin, S., Glenton, C., Munthe-Kaas, H., Carlsen, B., Colvin, C., & Gülmezoglu, M., … Rashidian, A. (2015). Using Qualitative Evidence in Decision Making for Health and Social Interventions: An Approach to Assess Confidence in Findings from Qualitative Evidence Syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLOS Medicine, 12(10), e1001895. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001895

Munn, Z., Porritt, K., Lockwood, C., Aromataris, E., & Pearson, A. (2014). Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach. BMC medical research methodology, 14(1), 108. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-108

O’brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245-1251. doi: 1097/ACM.0000000000000388

Porritt, K., Gomersall, J., & Lockwood, C. (2014). JBI’s systematic reviews: study selection and critical appraisal. AJN The American Journal of Nursing, 114(6), 47-52. doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000450430.97383.64.

Wang, V., & Reio, T. (2017). Handbook of research on innovative techniques, trends, and analysis for optimized research methods. IGI Global.