Self- corrected appraisal worksheets

Self- corrected appraisal worksheets

QUESTION
1. Read this quaNtative study:
  Link here for 2020 Kaihua article on the adverse skin reactions of health care worker using PPE for COVID-19 download
  Complete the appraisal worksheet: Link here for quaNtative appraisal worksheet: type directly on this page. download
  Answer the questions for the article. Look for and complete the yellow-highlighted sections on the appraisal worksheet.
  Complete the evidence evaluation table found below the ‘quality rating’ box.
  Complete the worksheet in blue ink.

Subject	Article Analysis	Pages	3	Style	APA

Answer

Evidence level __Level 5__and quality rating__HIGH_:(Fill these ratings in: These are decided after completing this worksheet)
Article title:	Number:
Author(s):	Publication date:
Journal:
Setting:	Sample (composition and size):
Does this evidence address my EBP question? Yes No-Do not proceed with appraisal of this evidence
Is this study: QuaNtitative (collection, analysis, and reporting of numerical data) Measurable data (how many; how much; or how often) used to formulate facts, uncover patterns in research, and generalize results from a larger sample population; provides observed effects of a program, problem, or condition, measured precisely, rather than through researcher interpretation of data. Common methods are surveys, face-to-face structured interviews, observations, and reviews of records or documents. Statistical tests are used in data analysis. Go to Section I: QuaNtitative QuaLitative (collection, analysis, and reporting of narrative data) The study employs both qualitative methods in data collection, analysis, and presentation of findings. The qualitative method used to collect the data is through the questionnaire with questions that allow the researchers to identify any long-term health risks experienced by healthcare workers in the Hubei province. They wear personal protective equipment (PPE) while administering care to patients and people affected by the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. The researchers used the questionnaires presented to the sample size of participants to provide data analyzed through qualitative methods to present results and findings on the research issue. Go to Section II: QuaLitative (scroll to next highlighted section- down several sections) Mixed methods (results reported both numerically and narratively) Both quaNtitative and quaLitative methods are used in the study design. Using both approaches, in combination, provides a better understanding of research problems than using either approach alone. Sample sizes vary based on methods used. Data collection involves collecting and analyzing both quaNtitative and quaLitative data in a single study or series of studies. Interpretation is continual and can influence stages in the research process. Go to Section III: Mixed Methods

Section I: QuaNtitative
Level of Evidence (Study Design)
Is this a report of a single research study?	□ Yes	□ No Go to B
1. Was there manipulation of an independent variable?	□ Yes	□ No
2. Was there a control group?	□ Yes	□ No
3. Were study participants randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups?	□ Yes	□ No
If Yes to questions 1, 2, and 3, this is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or experimental study.		LEVEL I
If Yes to questions 1 and 2 and No to question 3orYes to question 1 and No to questions 2 and 3, this is quasi-experimental. (Some degree of investigator control, some manipulation of an independent variable, lacks random assignment to groups, and may have a control group).		LEVEL II
If No to questions 1, 2, and 3, this is nonexperimental. (No manipulation of independent variable; can be descriptive, comparative, or correlational; often uses secondary data).		LEVEL III
Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question
Skip to the Appraisal of QuaNtitative Research Studies section

Section I: QuaNtitative (continued)
Is this a summary of multiple sources of research evidence?	□ Yes Continue	□ No Use Appendix F
1. Does it employ a comprehensive search strategy and rigorous appraisal method? If this study includes research, nonresearch, and experiential evidence, it is an integrative review (see Appendix F).	□ Yes Continue	□ No Use Appendix F
2. For systematic reviews and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (see descriptions below):
a. Are all studies included RCTs?		LEVEL I
b. Are the studies a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental, or quasi-experimental only?		LEVEL II
c. Are the studies a combination of RCTs, quasi-experimental, and nonexperimental, or non- experimental only?		LEVEL III
A systematic review employs a search strategy and a rigorous appraisal method, but does not generate an effect size. A meta-analysis, or systematic review with meta-analysis, combines and analyzes results from studies to generate a new statistic: the effect size.
Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question
Skip to the Appraisal of Systematic Review (With or Without a Meta-Analysis) section

Appraisal of QuaNtitative Research Studies
Does the researcher identify what is known and not known about the problem and how the study will address any gaps in knowledge?	□ Yes	□ No
Was the purpose of the study clearly presented?	□ Yes	□ No
Was the literature review current (most sources within the past five years or a seminal study)?	□ Yes	□ No
Was sample size sufficient based on study design and rationale?	□ Yes	□ No
If there is a control group: · Were the characteristics and/or demographics similar in both the control and intervention groups?	□ Yes	□ No	N/A
· If multiple settings were used, were the settings similar?	□ Yes	□ No	N/A
· Were all groups equally treated except for the intervention group(s)?	□ Yes	□ No	N/A
Are data collection methods described clearly?	□ Yes	□ No
Were the instruments reliable (Cronbach’s a[alpha] > 0.70)?	□ Yes	□ No	N/A
Was instrument validity discussed?	□ Yes	□ No	N/A
If surveys or questionnaires were used, was the response rate > 25%?	□ Yes	□ No	N/A
Were the results presented clearly?	□ Yes	□ No
If tables were presented, was the narrative consistent with the table content?	□ Yes	□ No	N/A
Were study limitations identified and addressed?	□ Yes	□ No
Were conclusions based on results?	□ Yes	□ No
Complete theQuality Rating for QuaNtitative Studiessection

Appraisal of Systematic Review (With or Without Meta-Analysis)
Were the variables of interest clearly identified?	□ Yes	□ No
Was the search comprehensive and reproducible? · Key search terms stated	□ Yes	□ No
· Multiple databases searched and identified	□ Yes	□ No
· Inclusion and exclusion criteria stated	□ Yes	□ No
Was there a flow diagram that included the number of studies eliminated at each level of review?	□ Yes	□ No
Were details of included studies presented (design, sample, methods, results, outcomes, strengths, and limitations)?	□ Yes	□ No
Were methods for appraising the strength of evidence (level and quality) described?	□ Yes	□ No
Were conclusions based on results?	□ Yes	□ No
· Results were interpreted	□ Yes	□ No

· Conclusions flowed logically from the interpretation and systematic review question	□ Yes	□ No
Did the systematic review include a section addressing limitations andhow they were addressed?	□ Yes	□ No
Complete theQuality Rating for QuaNtitative Studies section (below)

Quality Rating for QuaNtitative Studies

Circle the appropriate quality rating below:

A High quality: Consistent, generalizable results; sufficient sample size for the study design; adequate control; definitive conclusions; consistent recommendations based on comprehensive literature review that includes thorough reference to scientific evidence.

B Good quality: Reasonably consistent results; sufficient sample size for the study design; some control, and fairly definitive conclusions; reasonably consistent recommendations based on fairly comprehensive literature review that includes some reference to scientific evidence.

C Low quality or major flaws: Little evidence with inconsistent results; insufficient sample size for the study design; conclusions cannot be drawn.

Section II: QuaLitative(continue appraisal)

Level of Evidence (Study Design)

Is this a report of a single research study?

□ Yes
this is
Level III

□ No
go to II B

NO. The study is not a single research study. Single research studies employ data collection methods, analysis, and presentation of data for a sample size of fewer than ten individuals. The study revolves around questionnaires issued out to 65 participants. Therefore, the study is not a single research study.

Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question

1. Healthcare workers who wore the N95 facemasks regularly reported adverse reactions to the facemasks that acted as personal protective equipment for them. These reactions included nasal bridge scarring, itching and irritation on the face, damage to the skin, skin rash around the face, and dried skin. A few of the participants had wheals on the nose, jaw, and cheeks that showed where the N95 facemasks were placed when wearing them.

2. The participants who were involved in the study wore latex gloves regularly and reported severe skin reactions to the continued wearing of the gloves. Part of these reactions included dried skin, skin rash, chapped skin, and some who sweated in the gloves experienced edema.

3. The participants also reported injurious and harmful skin reactions when they wore protective clothing fitted as PPE while administering care to patients with Covid-19 in the Hubei province. Such reactions included increased itching, dried skin, rashes, wheals, and sweat herpes because of the airtight protective clothing.

Annotated Bibliography

(Hu et al., 2020) Hu, K., Fan, J., Li, X., Gou, X., Li, X., & Zhou, X. (2020). The adverse skin reactions of health care workers using personal protective equipment for COVID-19. Medicine, 99(24), e20603.

https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000020603

The journal article is a qualitative and quantitative mixed research study highlighting how healthcare workers in the Hubei province in China have had adverse skin reactions to long-term wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) while administering care to patients Coronavirus. The introduction of the study highlights the transmission speed of the Coronavirus as documented is faster than that of SARS and MERS viruses that also emerged in the 21^st Century. The researchers use this as a standing point to highlight that because of the transmission speed being higher, healthcare workers (HCWs) have resulted in wearing PPE for a longer and more regular time, resulting in skin reactions caused. The PPE that the HCWs used in the Hubei province were N95 facemasks, latex protective gloves, and airtight protective clothing. The study investigates what kind of skin reactions have been caused by the continued wearing of PPE by HCWs in the Hubei province, focusing on 65 participants to conduct the study effectively. The researchers formulated questionnaires where 61 of the 65 participants answered the questionnaires to present data through qualitative methods. The data were analyzed through the SPSS21.0 software computer software of statistical analysis. From the data collected and analyzed, it was evident that the PPE caused adverse skin reactions. The N95 facemasks caused skin reactions that included nasal bridge scarring, itching and irritation on the face, damage to the skin, skin rash around the face, and dried skin. The latex gloves caused dried skin, skin rash, chapped skin, and some who sweated in the gloves experienced edema. Lastly, the airtight protective clothing caused increased itching, dried skin, rashes, wheals, and sweat herpes.

While administering care is the main priority for healthcare workers, the article highlights the importance of safety when wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). The article explicitly explains that regular wearing can cause injurious and harmfully adverse skin reactions to healthcare workers. Therefore, the article helps in providing future recommendations that are needed when manufacturing PPE. Such innovations in PPE manufacturing should include a facemask with a cushioning on the metal clip that reduces or prevent the nasal bridge scarring and comfortable materials on the inside of the mask that reduces facial itching. Latex gloves developed as PPE should have an inside layering that does not cause dried skin and talcum powder, reducing skin abrasions and irritation. Lastly, the article is clear in advising healthcare workers to frequently change protective clothing to reduce skin reactions caused by them. In light of addressing the adversities faced by healthcare workers in wearing personal protective equipment while administering care that include adverse skin reactions, the article is precise and concise in providing relevant information on how to protect healthcare workers while administering care.

Complete theAppraisal of Single QuaLitative Research Study(the nextsectionbelow).

Appraisal of a Single QuaLitative Research Study (Identify where you found the answer to the questions. Write 1-2 sentences explaining your answer.

Was there a clearly identifiable and articulated:

· Purpose?

❑ Yes

❑ No

Yes. The study has a clear purpose of exploring the severely harmful skin reactions caused by healthcare workers wearing personal protective equipment in the Hubei province of China while administering care to patients affected by the Coronavirus while seeking solutions to alleviate the adverse skin reactions.

· Researchquestion?

❑ Yes

❑ No

No. A research question is absent. However, the purpose of the study highlights the main objective of the researchers in conducting the study.

· Justificationformethod(s)used?

❑ Yes

❑ No

Yes. The research justifies the need to speak on the continued wearing of PPE by healthcare workers. The study shows that regular and continued wearing of PPE by healthcare workers leads to adverse skin reactions. Considering healthcare workers should safeguard and give optimal patient care, it is justified to protect them by finding corrosive PPE solutions that adversely affect skin reactions.

· Phenomenonthatisthefocusoftheresearch?

❑ Yes

❑ No

Yes. The research is solely focused on highlighting the effects of continued wearing PPE by healthcare workers leading to skin reactions and highlighting solutions to this predicament.

Were study sample participants representative?

❑ Yes

❑ No

Yes. The study sample represented all genders and age groups that work in the healthcare profession. There was large representation of healthcare workers between the age of 30 and 39 of at least 41 of the 65 participants selected for the study.

Did they have knowledge of or experience with the research area?

❑ Yes

❑ No

Yes. The 65 participants chosen in the study are all healthcare workers experienced in caregiving. The research aims to focus on them as professionals in the administration of healthcare.

Were participant characteristics described?	❑ Yes	❑ No
Yes. The researchers are clear in identifying all genders involved in the study. The researchers also show the age groups of all participants effectively showing the study encompassed all centers of health care professional workers.
Was sampling adequate, as evidenced by achieving saturation of data?	❑ Yes	❑ No
Yes. All 61 of the initial 65 participants provided conclusive data to give results about the study. Data collected through answered questions in the questionnaires helped provide data analyzed through statistical computer software to help deliver results that were conclusive in finding solutions towards the adverse skin reactions caused by PPE worn by healthcare workers.
Data analysis: · Was a verification process used in every step by checking and confirming with participants the trustworthiness of analysis and interpretation?	❑ Yes	❑ No
Yes. The researchers used four criteria to assert trustworthiness in formulating the questionnaires, collecting data, and presenting results and findings. The researcher used credible sources to discuss and determine study conclusions. All participants were accorded time to verify the questions on the questionnaires, and if one were comfortable with the questions, they would answer them. The researchers also were credible in providing transparency in the data analyzed and collected. Lastly, the researchers were clear on providing results that credited their transparency and dependability in conducting the research effectively.
· Was there a description of how data were analyzed (i.e., method), by computer or manually?	❑ Yes	❑ No
Yes. Data was collected through answered questionnaires, ran through statistical computer analysis software, and results delivered as findings of the study.
Do findings support the narrative data (quotes)?	❑ Yes	❑ No
Yes. The N95 facemasks caused skin reactions that included nasal bridge scarring, itching and irritation on the face, damage to the skin, skin rash around the face, and dried skin. The latex gloves caused dried skin, skin rash, chapped skin, and some who sweated in the gloves experienced edema. Lastly, the airtight protective clothing caused increased itching, dried skin, rashes, wheals, and sweat herpes.
Do findings flow from research question to data collected to analysis undertaken?	❑ Yes	❑ No
Yes. The data analysis results showed a correlation between wearing PPE by healthcare workers for long caused adverse skin reactions that necessitated the need to find solutions that address skin reactions caused by wearing PPE extensively.
Are conclusions clearly explained?	❑ Yes	❑ No
Yes. The conclusions reached by the study show that the participants of the study would like for better personal protective equipment manufactured that does not cause adverse skin reactions; hence, through such innovations, healthcare workers can effectively concentrate on delivering optimal patient-centered care to those in need.
Skip to theQuality Rating for QuaLitative Studiessection

ForsummariesofmultiplequaLitativeresearchstudies(meta-synthesis), wasacomprehensivesearchstrategyandrigorousappraisalmethodused?	□ Yes Level III	□ No go to Appendix F
Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question
NOTE: Skip the Appraisal of Meta-Synthesis Studies section (below) this qualitative study does not have meta-synthesis.

Appraisal of Meta-Synthesis Studies
Were the search strategy and criteria for selecting primary studies clearly defined?	❑ Yes	❑ No
Were findings appropriate and convincing?	❑ Yes	❑ No
Was a description of methods used to: · Compare findings from each study?	❑ Yes	❑ No
· Interpret data?	❑ Yes	❑ No
Did synthesis reflect:	❑ Yes	❑ No
· New insights?	❑ Yes	❑ No
· Discovery of essential features of phenomena?	❑ Yes	❑ No
· A fuller understanding of the phenomena?	❑ Yes	❑ No
Was sufficient data presented to support the interpretations?	❑ Yes	❑ No
Complete the Quality Rating for QuaLititative Studies section (below)

Quality Rating for QuaLtitative Studies: Highlight the descriptive words that explain why you chose that ‘quality.’

Circle the appropriate quality rating below:

No commonly agreed-on principles exist for judging the quality of quaLitative studies. It is a subjective process based on the extent to which study data contributes to synthesis and how much information is known about the researchers’ efforts to meet the appraisal criteria.

For meta-synthesis, there is preliminary agreement that quality assessments should be made before synthesis to screen out poor-quality studies¹.

A/B High/Good quality is used for single studies and meta-syntheses².

The report discusses efforts to enhance or evaluate the quality of the data and the overall inquiry in sufficient detail; and it describes the specific techniques used to enhance the quality of the inquiry.

Evidence of some or all of the following is found in the report:

· Transparency: Describes how information was documented to justify decisions, how data were reviewed by others, and how themes and categories were formulated.

· Diligence: Reads and rereads data to check interpretations; seeks opportunity to find multiple sources to corroborate evidence.

· Verification: The process of checking, confirming, and ensuring methodologic coherence.

· Self-reflection and self-scrutiny: Being continuously aware of how a researcher’s experiences, background, or prejudices might shape and bias analysis and interpretations.

· Participant-driven inquiry: Participants shape the scope and breadth of questions; analysis and interpretation give voice to those who participated.

· Insightful interpretation: Data and knowledge are linked in meaningful ways to relevant literature.

CLower-quality studies contribute little to the overall review of findings and have few, if any, of the features listed for High/Good quality.

Fill in the follow evaluation table for this article:

(See example in Module 2 file of Phan article evaluation table example)

APA article reference

AND

Evidence type (Quantitative, Qualitative, Systematic Review, Opinion, etc.) Sample (N) size

Setting (put N/A if not applicable) Findings that help answer question Observations, themes and/or Outcomes measured Limitations Evidence level and Quality (from this worksheet)

Stop here (for Baloh article).

Section III: Mixed Methods
Level of Evidence (Study Design)
You will need to appraise both the quaNtitative and quaLitative parts of the study independently, before appraising the study in its entirety.
1. Evaluate the quaNitative part of the study using Section I.	Level	Quality
Insert here the level of evidence and overall quality for this part:
2. Evaluate the quaLitative part of the study using Section II.	Level	Quality
Insert here the level of evidence and overall quality for this part:
3. To determine the level of evidence, circle the appropriate study design:
· Explanatory sequential designs collect quaNtitative data first, followed by the quaLitative data; and their purpose is to explain quaNtitative results using quaLitative findings. The level is determined based on the level of the quaNtitative part. · Exploratory sequential designs collect quaLitative data first, followed by the quaNtitative data; and their purpose is to explain quaLitative findings using the quaNtitative results. The level is determined based on the level of the quaLitative part, and it is always Level III. · Convergent parallel designs collect the quaLitative and quaNtitative data concurrently for the purpose of providing a more complete understanding of a phenomenon by merging both datasets. These designs are Level III. · Multiphasic designs collect quaLitative and quaNtitative data over more than one phase, with each phase informing the next phase. These designs are Level III.
Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question
Complete the Appraisal of Mixed Methods Studiessection (below)

Appraisal of Mixed Methods Studies3
Wasthemixed-methodsresearchdesignrelevanttoaddressthe quaNtitative and quaLitative research questions (orobjectives)?	❑ Yes	❑ No	❑ N/A
WastheresearchdesignrelevanttoaddressthequaNtitativeand quaLitative aspects of the mixed-methods question (orobjective)?	❑ Yes	❑ No	❑ N/A
Forconvergentparalleldesigns,wastheintegrationofquaNtitative andquaLitativedata(orresults)relevanttoaddresstheresearch question orobjective?	❑ Yes	❑ No	❑ N/A
For convergent parallel designs, were the limitations associated withtheintegration(forexample,thedivergenceofquaLitativeand quaNtitative data or results) sufficientlyaddressed?	❑ Yes	❑ No	❑ N/A
Complete the Quality Rating for Mixed-Method Studies section (below)

3 National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (2015). Appraising Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Studies included in Mixed Studies Reviews: The MMAT. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University. (Updated 20 July, 2015) Retrieved from http://www.nccmt.ca/ resources/search/232

Quality Rating for Mixed-Methods Studies

Circle the appropriate quality rating below

A Highquality:Containshigh-qualityquaNtitativeandquaLitativestudycomponents;highlyrelevant studydesign;relevantintegrationofdataorresults;andcarefulconsiderationofthelimitationsof thechosenapproach.

B Goodquality:Containsgood-qualityquaNtitativeandquaLitativestudycomponents;relevantstudy design;moderatelyrelevantintegrationofdataorresults;andsomediscussionoflimitationsof integration.

C Low quality or major flaws: Contains low quality quaNtitative and quaLitative study components; studydesignnotrelevanttoresearchquestionsorobjectives;poorlyintegrateddataorresults;and noconsiderationoflimitsofintegration.

This question has been answered

References

Appendix

Appendix A:

Communication Plan for an Inpatient Unit to Evaluate the Impact of Transformational Leadership Style Compared to Other Leader Styles such as Bureaucratic and Laissez-Faire Leadership in Nurse Engagement, Retention, and Team Member Satisfaction Over the Course of One Year

Answer

Fill in the follow evaluation table for this article:

References

Related Samples

The Role of Essay Writing Services in Online Education: A Comprehensive Analysis

Write Like a Pro: Effective Strategies for Top-Notch Explication Essays

How to Conquer Your Exams: Effective Study Strategies for All Learners

Overcoming Writer’s Block: Strategies to Get Your Essays Flowing

Optimizing Your Online Learning Experience: Tips and Tricks for Success

Our Benefits

Our Services

Free Features