Critiquing a Quantitative Research Study

Quantitative Research Critique Your Name Subject and Section Professor’s Name November 11, 2024 Understanding how to perform a critique of quantitative studies is essential for any healthcare professional. This allows for a more critical approach as to generalizability and applicability of a research to one’s own practice. Accordingly, the succeeding critique would focus on Ankerstjerne et al’s (2022), research article entitled “Landscaping the evidence of intimate partner violence and postpartum depression: a systematic review”. More particularly, it utilizes the detailed guidelines as provided by Polit and Beck (2020) in doing critiques for nursing research. Methodology While performing this systematic review, the authors have followed the principles outlined in the PRISMA checklist as the systematic approach to collect and analyze data regarding the connection between Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and Post-partum Depression (PPD). The following method was developed to reduce possible bias in the study and maintain the stringency of the review. Also, there is a clear breakdown of each aspect of the adopted methodology about critical appraisal standards. Research Design The type of research study under consideration is systematic review, which is a very high level of research hierarchy, especially when undertaking reviews of evidence in various studies. The type of study designed for the research objective is a systematic review since it outlines the current evidence and understanding of the relationship between IPV and PPD. The authors did not provide a meta-analysis. However, identifying aOR from the individual investigations increases the understanding of the outcomes and the overall reliability of the data. Concerning comparison and data points, the authors analyzed 33 researched studies conducted across different economic settings besides different geographical regions, thus allowing for cross-socioeconomic comparisons. To control for variability in EPDS scores, the authors restricted the analysis to studies that employed EPDS, except that they did not set an expected cutoff across all cultures. However, the heterogeneity in IPV and PPD measurements among the included studies may be a limitation to comparability, as stated by the authors. The process of bias minimization is well-said in the present design and follows a systematized format; the databases specifically searched are also comprehensive and are not restricted by language or type of study. Population and Sample To avoid any confusion, the authors explicitly defined their population of interest as women experiencing IPV. They screened for PPD, excluded studies that used screening tools other than the EPDS and accepted studies that enrolled nonpregnant women. However, they excluded those studies that focussed on specific subgroups of women, like mothers with certain health conditions or ailments. This makes the review's findings more interpretable and the identification of populations more relevant. The type of sampling among the included studies was diverse, with variations in sample size, type of study design, and place of study, namely, low-income or high-income countries. While the authors of the individual studies did not perform their sampling, the authors of the present meta-analysis assessed the sampling methods of the included studies using the NOS. One strength in this regard is that the authors evaluate the generalizability or representativeness of each study within its respective economic context using the World Bank income classifications. Thus, the global applicability of the review is not compromised. However, using samples with high attrition or refusal rates can affect the validity of the statistical conclusions of some of the studies. Data Collection and Measurement Data collection across the reviewed studies mainly used self-completed instruments, as noted in the EPDS, a standard tool for measuring PPD. The EPDS was selected as this tool is valid in various cultures, and thus, various translations have been made and validated. That being said, as pointed out in the review, differences in the cutoff scores on the EPDS in different studies and multicultural contexts mean that there are measurement issues that should be considered. He and she labeled the cross-sectional studies that grouped IPV into physical, psychological, and sexual violence according to the WHO classification. This categorization was done purposely to enhance the study's internal validity of assessing the category of IPV. As a general remark, further elements concerning the reliability and validity of the IPV measures employed in the studies under review are expected. While the data collection procedures were not adopted directly by the review authors, their careful identification of certain types of studies, their more detailed identification of studies for inclusion, and their comprehensive and systematic approach to data extraction and verification also embody a concern for reliability. Procedures Potential studies were initially screened and then further systematically assessed in a two-step process, using the Covidence system and consulting with two authors; a third author was consulted in cases of disagreement. It helps to minimize the selection bias, and the comparability of the included studies is ensured because only those that correspond to the identified criteria were included in the analysis. Moreover, due to the comprehensive extraction of data from each article, the chance of reporting bias is reduced, and the second author confirmed the data. When assessing studies with intervention components, aspects such as blinding and participant compliance with the intervention were considered, but the level of detail about these procedural issues differed from study to study. Thus, regarding this review, direct intervention control was not possible. However, the authors sorted and assessed the levels of evidential quality from the included studies to minimize the impact of potential biases. Quality Assessment The applic...