Appraisal of Two Research Papers Using Critical Appraisal Framework Tool

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF TWO RESEARCH PAPERS
By (Name)
The Name of the Class (Course)
Professor (Tutor)
The Name of the School (University)
The City and State Where it is located
The Date
A Critical Appraisal of Two Research Papers
EBP refers to the meticulous, clear, and careful application of current best evidence in decisions regarding individual patient care. It entails assimilating individual clinical proficiency with the best available contemporary clinical evidence from methodical research all while giving consideration to the preferences of the patient. EBP has evolved to include the best research evidence, the nature of the practice in which the nurse operates, the patient’s individual wants and conditions, and clinical expertise. EBP is critical in clinical settings because it helps healthcare professionals decide the most effective course of action, thereby improving patient outcomes. Besides promoting current and evidence-backed methods in a fast-paced field such as healthcare, it also encourages an attitude of inquiry among clinicians who are prone to stick to standard practices (Stevens, 2013). EBP aims to ensure that nurses explore the possibility of modifications to current practices and question the findings of research studies. EBP empowers healthcare providers to consistently evaluate the results of any given research study and determine if the evidence is focused on patients’ needs and values.
The steps to EBP include: asking the clinical question; gathering the most appropriate and best evidence; analyzing the evidence; integrating all evidence with personal expertise, patient preferences, and the clinical setting; over and above assessing the outcomes of the applied evidence on the patient or in practice. This approach allows healthcare providers to appraise current evidence and make both qualitative and quantitative verdicts for patient care. Before EBP, nurses were dependent on the advice of their more experienced peers, their intuition, and their clinical experiences. These sources of knowledge were subject to flaws of being obsolete, incorrect, or biased and often ended with tragic clinical outcomes. The inclusion of EBP in healthcare ensures that clinicians can make well-founded judgments (Li-Yin, 2019). However, not all published research can be employed to inform clinical decision-making. Therefore, nurses must have the skills to critically appraise any research evidence to see if it is of sufficient quality to inform their choices. The three important elements of any evidence a healthcare giver needs to evaluate critically are validity, impact, and applicability. Clinicians must be able to determine if the evidence can be trusted, if the results are clinically significant, and whether they can be applied to the patient or healthcare setting. The categories of research that can be used as evidence include randomized controlled trials; evidence collected from case-control analysis, cohort or observation studies; and personal experience. The above four groups are listed from the most trustworthy to the least reliable.
This paper will employ contemporary research methods literature to critically appraise two research articles. The first article is a paper by Chendrasekhar, et al., (2020) titled “Delayed Sequelae Related to Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Children” which employed quantitative research methods to assess the long-term sequelae of traumatic brain injury among children below 15 years. The second paper is by Kulnik, et al., (2019) titled “Confidence and Willingness among Laypersons in the UK to Act in a Head Injury Situation: A Qualitative Focus Group Study” which used qualitative research methods to explore factors influencing confidence and willingness among laypersons in the UK to act in a head injury situation. This essay will critically appraise the data collection tools of both papers using Moule & Hek (2011) critical appraisal framework tool. It will also explore and critique the concept of Hierarchy of Evidence as well as identify the position the two articles hold with justification on known hierarchies of evidence. The paper will finally discuss the research design of the two articles, how they inform nursing and midwifery, and how the findings contribute to this area of practice.
Data collection refers to the procedure of collecting and evaluating the information on variables of concern in a conventionally systematic manner that allows one to test hypotheses, answer predetermined research questions, and analyze outcomes. This paper focused on this element of research methods because it is crucial to preserving the integrity of any study and, in sequence, the validity and applicability of its evidence. Irrespective of the research method used (qualitative, quantitative), the selection of data collection instruments and their use determines the value of any research evidence regarding EBP. Consequently, this paper will employ Moule & Hek (2011) critical appraisal framework tool to determine: if the design of the study was appropriate to the research question; if appropriate methods of data collection were used; if the advantages and disadvantages of the methods used were discussed; as well as if the reliability and validity of any data collection tool were tested.
Descriptive research denotes the kind of research design, data analysis, and type of research employed to a particular study topic. Both research papers employ the descriptive research design, and while elements of both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies can be applied within the same study, the two authors restrict themselves to one research methodology. Chendrasekhar, et al., (2020) use quantitative research methods to collect quantifiable information on how many patients below the age of 15 years that were admitted and diagnosed in the research hospital’s trauma registry as Mild TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) exhibited sequelae. The authors used a quantitative descriptive design because they were more interested in collecting and describing residual symptoms and signs of concussive injury among patients than investigating the same reason. Similarly, Kulnik, et al., (2019) use qualitative research methods to collect accurate descriptions of factors influencing confidence and willingness among laypersons in the UK to act in a head injury situation.
The authors used a qualitative descriptive design because they desired an uncomplicated description that concentrated on the details of what factors influenced laypersons' confidence and willingness to act in a head injury and why. Both papers employ appropriate research designs with respect to their research questions. Chendrasekhar, et al., (2020) use close-ended questions to come up with concrete conclusions about the incidence of long-term sequelae associated with mild TBI among children 1 to 14 years old. Kulnik, et al., (2019) want an inductive exploration of the data (the reasons why laypeople are less confident and willing to act in a head injury) to categorize regular themes so that they can describe and construe those classifications. The objectives of both studies are to define a phenomenon together with its features: they are both trying to derive the patterns and behaviours of the participants. This descriptive research design is particularly appropriate for both investigations because they are the first studies in their fields to study the phenomena. So, defining the characteristics of the population is crucial.
Chendrasekhar, et al., (2020) used the phone survey as the primary data collection method. Since the authors were collecting quantifiable information, this approach was satisfactory for the study. Phone interviews allow for the quick gathering of quantitative data, especially if performed by able interviewers. They also have a personal touch when performed in a professional and skilled manner. Telephone surveys have an extensive geographical reach, and the researchers could reach all participants inexpensively. However, other methods of data collection should have been considered, such as web-surveys, to make up for the shortcomings of telephone surveys as the only method of data collection. This would have possibly resulted in a higher participation rate. Besides, web-based surveys possess the advantage of having low levels of interviewer predisposition as the interviewer is not directly involved in the research process. The participants can even share certain information that they would not have shared with the interviewer had they been interacting personally. Like telephone surveys, web-surveys cover an extensive geographical region and offer swift return times while also saving time and cost.
Kulnik, et al., (2019) collected their data using focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Focus groups are particularly useful when in-depth details of a phenomenon are required. When led by a skilled moderator, a well-planned focus groups allow the emergence of varying opinions and perspectives, all of which integrate to paint a vivid picture for the researcher. Because they involve a group of people, focus groups can provide valuable awareness of the factors affecting confidence and willingness among laypersons in the UK to act in a head injury situation for a fraction of the time it would take to interview the participants individually. What is more, the use of focus groups in conjunction with semi-structured interviews, transcripts, field notes, observation, and audio recorders ensure a rigorous exploration of the research question (D'Amato, 2013). The semi-structured interviews allowed the respondents to elucidate their responses to complex matters and give detailed answers. Furthermore, the use of transcripts, field notes, observation, and audio recorders du...