Examination of Two Research Papers for Evidence-Based Practice

Critical appraisal is the process of the systematic examination of the validity, trustworthiness and relevance of the data of a selected research paper before using these data as form of evidences. Critical appraisal is associated with analysing the appropriateness of all the research elements such as data collection, sampling and data analysis, that are presented in the selected research paper. This essay will present a critical analysis of one of the research elements in the two given research papers by using relevant evidences. Additionally, this essay will also critically analyse the two research papers in relation to analyse the usefulness as well as applicability of their data into the nursing and midwifery practice. Through using the relevant evidences this essay will critically evaluate the importance and validity of the data of these research papers into the evidence-based practice in future research in nursing field.

Out of the two selected research papers, one article is “Delayed Sequelae Related to Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Children". The authors of this article Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) had conducted quantitative study, in which numeric data are collected from the participants (children of 1-14years) through carrying out a telephonic interview. This paper aims to provide a new insight on the long-term impacts of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in children. On the other hand, in another article” “Confidence and willingness among laypersons in the UK to act in a head injury situation: a qualitative focus group study” Kulnik et al. (2019) had presented a qualitative study which aims to analyse the willingness and confidence of participants (laypersons in the UK) in terms of managing the head injury situation. In this qualitative study Kulnik et al. (2019) had collected the data from the six focus groups that consist of cares of young children, school staffs, young adults, sport coaches, adults and young children. Here Kulnik et al. (2019) had carries out the semi-structed interview to collected the data on the experiences perspectives and decision of the participates regarding their willingness and confidence regarding managing the head injury situation.

As stated by Shea et al. (2017), for carrying out a systematic critical appraisal of any research paper, it is crucial to use a valid, appropriate and trustworthy critical analysing tool. This essay will use the Moule (2018) critical appraisal framework to critically appraise the data collection method the two selected research paper. Moule (2018) critical appraisal framework is one of the most trustworthy and appropriate critical analysing tools, that assist researchers to analyse the validity, authenticity and relevance of research elements of any research paper. According to Rahman (2020), Moule (2018) critical appraisal framework is highly effective in terms of carrying out the evidence-based practices in nursing and midwifery practices. Through using Moule (2018) framework, this essay will carry out a systematic analysis of data collection method used in the two selected articles by evaluating the validity of each aspect of the data collection process. Moreover, the Moule (2018), will assist this essay to present a comparative discussion on the data analysis by comparing the data collection process of each article with other relevant evidences that will assist future nursing professional to improve their overall professional knowledge and expertise in terms of providing safe end high quality care to patients.

According to Moule (2018) while critically analysing data collection method of any research paper, the first things that needs to be considered is the appropriateness of the data collection method that is used by researchers for collecting data. Chendrasekhar et al. 2020 had carried out the primary quantitative data collection in terms of collecting the numeric data from the children who suffer from the TBI at any of the stages of their life. In this research, researcher had collected the quantitative data from children admitted in the ICU with level 2 TBI to collect valid data about their length of hospital stay, Injury severity score (ISS), their age, gender, ICU stay and pain severity score. As opined by Bernard (2017), a good data collection method is associated with colleting the realistic and valid data that can be used as the evidences in the future researches. The author also mentioned that, while using any data collection method, research paper must mention the valid reason and usefulness of the data collection methods. On this note Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) did not mentioned the justified reason of using the primary quantitative data collection method. However, through analysing the entire data collection process of this research paper, it is clear that researcher had selected the primary quantitative data collection for colleting the numeric data on all the demographic and biological factors that are associated with the long-term sequence of the TBI in children. On this note the research paper by Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) dis not cover all these factors which can raise questions on the validity and trustworthiness of its data collection method. Despite these limitations, through analysing the data collection process of this research paper, it can be stated that the selection of the primary quantitative data collection is relevant to the research aim and objectives of this research paper. This is because primary quantitative data collection assisted researchers to collect the valid and genuine numeric responses of participants (children with TBI) on their physical, psychological and demographic characteristics. As argued by Queirós et al. (2017), good research paper must mention the factors that are associated with selecting the particular types of data collection methods. The author also mentioned that these factors are whether the selected data collection methods is relevant to research objectives and aims and whether the data collection method is useful to collect data that can answer all research questions. as mentioned by Miller et al. (2019), a good data collection method is something that enable researchers to collect such evidences that are valid and justified thereby assisting researcher to meet research objectives. On this positive note, by selecting quantitative data collection method Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) is able to collect genuine on both the demographic (age, gender, education and income of parents) and the physical database (length of hospital stay, Injury severity score (ISS). All these data are highly effective to analyse the risk factors associated with the long-term sequence of TBI in children. In this context, the selection of primary quantitative data collection methods is highly justified as well as relevant for this research paper. Heydari et al. (2017), mentioned that, while carrying out any telephonic interview, researchers must ensure that certain factors that are associated with this process are considered such as the relationship between the researchers and the participants, the reason behind not conducting the face-to-face interview and any chances of data manipulation due to use of telephonic process. Unfortunately, in the article Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) failed to present these aspects while mentioning the data collection process. Despite these limitations, through analysing the entire data collection process, it is clear that, the reason behind telephonic interview was to avoid the any chances of physical and mental stress on the children who recovered from the TBI. On a positive note, the telephonic survey is highly appropriate in context of providing the children and guardians with opportunity to discuss their responses freely over phone rather than feeling hesitated and embarrassed to provide their responses in face-to-face discussion. On this note, it can be stated that section on the telephonic survey as the data collection method is justified and appropriate for this auricle.

On the other hand, Kulnik et al. (2019) had selected the primary qualitative data collection method (semi-structured interview) in terms on collecting responses on the selected participants. As mentioned by Miller et al. (2019), a valid and trustworthy research paper must mention the clear and justified reason behind selecting any particular data collection method. This research paper although did not present the clear reason or justification behind selectin of qualitative data collection method, through evaluating the entre data collection it can be stated that this data collection process is appropriate in terms of connecting the relevant and valid data from participants. In the paper by Kulnik et al. (2019), the qualitative data collection enabled researchers to collect the responses on the opinion, perspectives and attuites of the UK based laypersons regarding their wiliness as well as confidence on managing the head injury situation. In this context Robertshaw et al. (2017) argued that, a good research paper is not that only presenting the justification and usefulness of the selected data collection method, but the one that also presents the limitations barriers that researchers faced while carrying out the data collection methods. Unfortunately, this research paper by Kulnik et al. (2019) did not present any limitations a associated with the data collection methods which can pose questions on the appropriates of data collection method of this paper. As mentioned by Rutberg and Bouikidis (2018), primary qualitative data collection method is carried out in terms of collecting data on participants’ experiences, opinion, perspectives and behaviour on any particular research topic

Moule (2018) mentioned that, while critically analysing data collection method, researchers must analyse whether the research paper clearly discuss the usefulness and limitations of the chosen data collection methods. In their research paper Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) did not mention the effectiveness of the data collection method that they used in this research which can be considered as the potential drawback of the data collection segment of this research article. As mention by Hong et al. (2017), in a good data collection method, researchers must discuss its effectiveness in terms of meeting research objectives and aims, its scope in the future researchers and its usefulness in providing the evidence-based data that can be applied in any future research. In this context, it must be mentioned that, in both the research articles Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) and Kulnik et al. (2019) were failed to present proper discussion on the effectiveness of the data collection method they used in their study in terms of enabling researchers to meet the research objectives. This drawback can raise questions on the validity and appropriateness of data collection of these two-research papers. In the paper by Chendrasekhar et al. (2020), although it is clear from in the data collection section, that the selection on quantitative study assisted the researchers to meet collect the relevant numeric data on the long-term sequence on TBI in children, this paper failed to discuss the others factors thar were also needed to be considered while analysing and the effectiveness of data collection methods. These factors are the future scope and applicability on these data collection process (quantitative) in evidence-based practices in nursing and healthcare and transferability of the data that are collected through using quantitative data collection process. On the other hand, though the paper by Kulnik et al. (2019) had presented clear discussion on the qualitative semi-structured interview to analyse the responses, perspectives and behaviour of layperson in the UK, but it is somehow failed to discuss the usefulness their data collection process in terms of providing the future nurses, midwives with innovative approaches ion managing head injuries. As mentioned by Bernerth et al. (2018) good research paper not only describes the usefulness of data collection method but also present a clear evaluation of its associated limitation of drawback that researchers faced while carrying ut this data collection process. Unfortunately, in both the research paper there are no clear discussion on what challenges or drawbacks Kulnik et al. (2019) and Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) experiences while carrying out the chosen data collection method such as semi-structured interview and telephonic survey respectively.

As mentioned by Moule (2018), while critically analysing any data collection segment of any research paper, researchers must consider whether the research papers discuss about the pilot study. The author also mentioned that a good research paper must have a clear discussion on the pilot study is it is carried out or mentions the proper justification of pilot study is not conducted by researchers. As mentioned by Robertshaw et al. (2017), pilot study can be defined as the small-scale research study that is carried out before conducting the main research study. The paper “Delayed Sequelae Related to Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Children” clearly mentioned that, before carrying out the telephonic interview, researchers (health professionals) had conducted a research on the data they collected from the EHR (Electronic health record) of children who admitted in ICU with; level 2 TBI. This paper calos mentioned that before carrying out the main research, researchers had conducted research on the health condition, the severity of the brain injury, age, pre medical history, profession and family background of the participants (children). On a positive note, Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) mentioned that the pilot study was highly effective for them to understand the health condition, their ability to attend the data collection process and their family and parental background which were highly useful in carrying out the entire data collection in a systematic and right direction. On the contrary Kulnik et al. (2019), failed to present any clear discussion on whether any pilot study was conducted by them before carryon gut the semi-structured interview. As argued by lobiondo-Wood and Haber (2017), the validity and trustworthiness of a semi-structured interview in based on how effectively the researchers observe the behaviour, perspectives, opinion and attitude of participants in the pilot study. As mention by De Block and Vis (2019), pilot study is crucial for anal suing the validity on any data collection method because this study assists researchers to understand what elements are required to collect the valid data or how the data collection need to be performed to get the maximum success. The authors also mentioned that in qualitative research pilot study is crucial, because by conducting this study, research can conduct a small-scale research on how the participants behave, react and deal in a particular situation. Unfortunately, in the paper by Kulnik et al. (2019), the lack of discussion on any pilot study raise question on the validity, authenticity and trustworthiness of its data collection process.

Moule (2018) mentioned that, while carrying out any critical apprise of any research articles, researchers must consider the type of the research questions that are asked to participants. The paper” Delayed Sequelae Related to Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Children”, clearly mentioned that, here Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) had arranged numeric questionnaires for participants that were asked the over phone. This paper also mentioned that, here researcher had used the close ended questions that were firmed based on the demographic characteristics and physical health of the participants. Moreover, this paper also presented a template of telephonic questionnaires-based tat was used by the researchers to collect data from participants. On this positive note, it can be stated that Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) had a clear discussion on the type of the questionnaires that were used by them which enabled them, to enhance the validity and trustworthiness of data collection process. In another research paper by Kulnik et al. (2019) also had a clear discussion on the types of research question were arranged for participants. This paper clearly mentioned that researcher had arranged open-ended questionnaires that were asked to the participants in the semi-structured interview to collect the responses on their experiences, perspectives and attitude on their willingness to manage head injury. Although the paper by Kulnik et al. (2019) failed to present the clear justification on choosing the qualitative open-ended questionaries, through analysing the data collection process, it is clear that the open-ended questions are highly relevant in terms of gathering in-depth data on the behaviour, perspectives, opinion and attitudes of participants on the particular research topic. As argued by Violante and Vezzetti (2017) a good data collection is something that always give proper justification of choosing the particular types of questionnaires for collecting relevant data. On this note on both the research paper the type of questionnaires that are asked to participants are highly valid and relevant that enhance the trustworthiness of the data collection method.

According to Moule (2018) critical appraisal framework, validity, appropriateness and trustworthiness of a data collection is based on the fact that whether the participants are protected both physically and mentally throughout data collection process. As stated by Sale and Thielke (2018), any good research paper must discuss the non-maleficence, beneficence and equality that are maintained by researchers towards the participants throughout the data collection. However, both the research articles failed to present clear discussion on how researchers had ensured the safety, equal values and protection from any harm or abuse to the participants. Although in the paper by Chendrasekhar et al. (2020), the ethical approval that was gained by researchers from the ethical committee had been mentioned at the end of the paper, there was no discussion on whether researchers were able to maintained the non-maleficence to the participates. This pose questions on the validity of the data collection method. In both the research paper, the researchers did not mention that whether any special safety or protection had been arranged for the vulnerable participants such as mentally ill children or young people, physically handicapped children and disabled adults. This can be considered as the major drawback of both of these selected articles.

Moule (2018) mentioned that while critically analysing the data collection method of any research paper, researchers must consider some other important factors such as the authority of persons who collected the data, the relationship between the researchers and participants and deception issue. As mentioned by lobiondo-Wood and Haber (2017) in a valid and trustworthy data collection method data must be collected by authorised person who has the appropriate skill and authority of collecting valid data. In the paper by Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) data are collected by the reputed medical professionals who are the surgeon and medical professors of the hospital in the UK in which the children were admitted with TBI. On the other hand, in another paper Kulnik et al. (2019) mentioned that data are collected by the authorised and well-trained medical professionals who have the skill and expertise on this process. On this aspect in can be stated that the data collection process is highly valid in both the research study. However, in terms of discussing the relationship between the researchers and participants both Chendrasekhar et al. (2020) and Keedle et al. (2018) filed to give any justified and clear discussion. This can be considered as the major drawback of the data collection method of these two research papers.

From the overall discussion, it can be concluded that, both the selected research papers are unable to meet all the criteria of the Mole (2018) in terms of presenting a good standard data collection method. In both the research papers there are some usefulness and limitation of the chosen data collection method which impacts on the validity and authenticity of the entire research paper. Through this analysis, many researcher gaps are determined that need to be encountered and manged in the future research through using justified and valid evidences.

Reference list:

Abbott, R., Orr, N., McGill, P., Whear, R., Bethel, A., Garside, R., Stein, K. and Thompson‐Coon, J., 2019. How do “robopets” impact the health and well‐being of residents in care homes? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence. International journal of older people nursing, 14(3), p.e12239.

Bernard, H.R., 2017. Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Rowman & Littlefield.

Bernerth, J.B., Cole, M.S., Taylor, E.C. and Walker, H.J., 2018. Control variables in leadership research: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Management, 44(1), pp.131-160.

Brannen, J. ed., 2017. Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. Routledge.

Collins, B.C., Hunter, C.L., Liu, Y., Schilling, B., Rosenberger, G., Bader, S.L., Chan, D.W., Gibson, B.W., Gingras, A.C., Held, J.M. and Hirayama-Kurogi, M., 2017. Multi-laboratory assessment of reproducibility, qualitative and quantitative performance of SWATH-mass spectrometry. Nature communications, 8(1), pp.1-12.

De Block, D. and Vis, B., 2019. Addressing the challenges related to transforming qualitative into quantitative data in qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), pp.503-535.

Heydari, A., Vafaei, S.M. and Bakhshi, M., 2017. Critical appraisal of published qualitative research papers in the field of nursing management by Iranian authors: A cross-sectional study. Acta facultatis medicae Naissensis, 34(2), pp.119-128.

Hong, Q.N. and Pluye, P., 2019. A conceptual framework for critical appraisal in systematic mixed studies reviews. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), pp.446-460.

Hong, Q.N., Pluye, P., Bujold, M. and Wassef, M., 2017. Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Systematic reviews, 6(1), pp.1-14.

Kelley-Quon, L.I., 2018, December. Surveys: Merging qualitative and quantitative research methods. In Seminars in pediatric surgery (Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 361-366). WB Saunders.

LoBiondo-Wood, G. and Haber, J., 2017. Nursing research-e-book: methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice. Elsevier Health Sciences.

Majid, U. and Vanstone, M., 2018. Appraising qualitative research for evidence syntheses: a compendium of quality appraisal tools. Qualitative health research, 28(13), pp.2115-2131.

Marcus, G., 2018. Deep learning: A critical appraisal. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.00631.

Miller, J.D., Vize, C., Crowe, M.L. and Lynam, D.R., 2019. A critical appraisal of the dark-triad literature and suggestions for moving forward. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4), pp.353-360.

Nalmpantis, C. and Vrakas, D., 2019. Machine learning approaches for non-intrusive load monitoring: from qualitative to quantitative comparation. Artificial Intelligence Review, 52(1), pp.217-243.

Peng, Y., Shi, C., Xu, M., Kou, T., Wu, X., Song, B., Ma, H., Guo, S., Liu, L. and Zhu, Y., 2018. Qualitative and quantitative identification of components in mixture by terahertz spectroscopy. IEEE Transactions on Terahertz Science and Technology, 8(6), pp.696-701.

Pluye, P., Bengoechea, E.G., Granikov, V., Kaur, N. and Tang, D.L., 2018. A world of possibilities in mixed methods: review of the combinations of strategies used to integrate qualitative and quantitative phases, results and data. Int J Mult Res Approaches, 10(1), pp.41-56.

Queirós, A., Faria, D. and Almeida, F., 2017. Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. European Journal of Education Studies.

Quigley, J.M., Thompson, J.C., Halfpenny, N.J. and Scott, D.A., 2019. Critical appraisal of nonrandomized studies—a review of recommended and commonly used tools. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 25(1), pp.44-52.

Rahman, M.S., 2020. The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language “testing and assessment” research: A literature review.

Robertshaw, L., Dhesi, S. and Jones, L.L., 2017. Challenges and facilitators for health professionals providing primary healthcare for refugees and asylum seekers in high-income countries: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative research. BMJ open, 7(8).

Rutberg, S. and Bouikidis, C.D., 2018. Focusing on the fundamentals: A simplistic differentiation between qualitative and quantitative research. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 45(2), pp.209-213.

Sale, J.E. and Thielke, S., 2018. Qualitative research is a fundamental scientific process. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 102, pp.129-133.

Shea, B.J., Reeves, B.C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E. and Henry, D.A., 2017. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. bmj, 358.\

Violante, M.G. and Vezzetti, E., 2017. Kano qualitative vs quantitative approaches: An assessment framework for products attributes analysis. Computers in Industry, 86, pp.15-25.

Dig deeper into Enhancing Web Application Security with our selection of articles.