{br} STUCK with your assignment? {br} When is it due? {br} Get FREE assistance. Page Title: {title}{br} Page URL: {url}
UK: +44 748 007-0908, USA: +1 917 810-5386 [email protected]
  1. Self- corrected appraisal worksheets    

    QUESTION

    Discuss Healthcare Workers’ strategies for doffing personal protective equipment

 

Subject Nursing Pages 4 Style APA

Answer

Evidence level __9.5__and quality rating_9.5__:(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 fits into a qualitative research study as the researchers incorporate video recording, audio recording, and interviews as qualitative methods in the research. As the research revolves around observing the selected participants on doffing techniques, the video recordings from four angles were shot to capture all angles of all participants participating in the study. The researchers also adopted interview questions that followed the video recordings, which probed after the video analysis to understand the participants’ doffing techniques better. While conducting the open-ended interview, the researchers, after consent from participants, collected audio recordings from the interviews to further study the doffing techniques that were later transcribed. These techniques are part of qualitative research study techniques; therefore, the article incorporates qualitative study techniques.

 

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.

 

·         Was there a description of how data were analyzed (i.e., method), by computer or manually?

❑ Yes

❑ No

Yes. Data collected was analyzed deductively and inductively using transcript codes. After coding was done, data from the two researchers who independently ran the data through the transcript codes collectively compared and grouped data to finalize their analyses.

 

Do findings support the narrative data (quotes)?

❑ Yes

❑ No

Yes. Collectively, the research proved that when PPE is doffed safely and expediently, self-contamination is reduced. Also, participants looked into the type of fasteners on PPE, especially facemasks, to safely workaround on how to doff PPE without self-contamination. Lastly, the participants agreed that barriers to removing facemasks were barriers, as fasteners were placed in the back of the head that increased the risk of self-contamination at doffing PPE; therefore, participants ripped them off. 

 

Do findings flow from research question to data collected to analysis undertaken?

❑ Yes

❑ No

Yes. Each of the findings answers the perspectives of healthcare workers to reduce and prevent self-contamination from infectious agents. These perspectives are tabled to check the safety of healthcare workers when administering care to avoid self-contamination.

 

Are conclusions clearly explained?

❑ Yes

❑ No

Yes. The conclusions explain that each of the participants is well aware that they can self-contaminate on the doffing of PPE; therefore, safety protocols are needed to help with easily removable PPE and expedient processes that ascertain no self-contamination during doffing.

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).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 https://www.york.ac.uk/crd/SysRev/!SSL!/WebHelp/6_4_ASSESSMENT_OF_QUALITATIVE_RESEARCH.htm
2 Adapted from Polit & Beck (2017).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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

The study is a single research study as it incorporates more participants than a single research study does. In single research studies, researchers pick out a maximum of ten participants to conduct a quantitative study. The study involves 30 participants divided into three groups of ten participants each. Therefore, each group of participants acts as a study area for proper and effective findings towards the goal of the study.

Were participant characteristics described?

❑ Yes

❑ No

No. Researchers preferred to keep the focus of the study on the perspectives of the participants than individualize studies. Conclusively, the study was goal-oriented to provide proper data that is non-biased.

Was sampling adequate, as evidenced by achieving saturation of data?

❑ Yes

❑ No

Yes. Participants involved in the research study provided data that was conclusive to help bring out substantial findings. The data collected from the video recordings, follow-up open-ended interview questions, and transcribed audio recordings help substantiate the data into satisfactory results for the study.

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 video recording from the participant involvement showed them in their natural state of work; therefore, trustworthiness was guaranteed as participants were well in their fields to perform common practices in their administration of care while observing safety protocols.

References

Related Samples

WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, how can I help?