Assessment 2 template
Word count of the template = approx. 750 words
Tool for critiquing QUALITATIVE research (1500 word-equivalent)
Tool for critiquing qualitative research is modified based on the Critical Review Form-Qualitative Studies ©Law, M., Stewart, D., Pollock, N., Letts, L. Bosch, J., & Westmorland, M.
Instructions:
• Complete all of the questions in the template below in reference to the article that you have selected. Ensure that you have selected the correct template (quantitative or qualitative) to match the research method in the article that you have selected.
• Where there is a Yes/No option in the question, delete the option that does not apply.
Question 1: Study aim /Research question
(a) Did the study have a clearly stated aim/research question? Yes
(b) Explain your response below:
The question clearly states in the title ‘attitudes about the access to influenza vaccination experienced by parents of children hospitalised for influenza in Australia’ (Carlson et al 2019, pp. 5994)
The research question is valid and identifies the elements of a qualitative research question. It has included the population, interest, and context to answer the table below.
P: Parents of the children hospitalised for influenza
I: attitudes about access to influenza vaccination
Co: in Australia
Question 2: Relevance to nursing/midwifery practice
(a) Explain how this question was relevant to nursing/midwifery practice.
This study resulted in many barriers to having the influenza vaccination. Misinterpretations and knowledge gaps, inconvenient vaccination pathways and absence of promotion and the safety concerns and the preference for a ‘natural’ way (Carlson et al 2019). This is relevant to the nursing practice because it is a continual barrier and concern for our nurses and health system . Vaccine-hesitant parents collect misinformation from social medical or the internet and therefore don’t have the correct education and information in making informed decisions. Health care providers are continually recommending and providing information about the benefits of vaccination but are also reporting the numerous challenges associated from the ‘vaccine-hesitant’ parents such as requesting more information during clinic visits and battling with the refusal of vaccinating their children.
Registered nurses (RN’s) are in a primary position to improve parent knowledge and encourage parents about the benefits of the influenza vaccine and the positive outcomes that come with children having the regular scheduled vacinnations.
The following standard for practice 3.7 says ‘to identify and promote the integral role of nursing practice and profession in influencing better health outcomes for people’ (NMBA, 2016). 3.2 standard for practice also mentioned that the RN ‘provides the information and education required to enhance peoples control over health’ (NMBA, 2016) . This means that we are to follow these standards and an evidence based practice understanding to address the challenge of parental vaccine hesitancy. This will bridge the gap with improving to helpin educate the parents in their decision making and helping the pressures of the health system.
Question 3: Ethics
(a) What were the possible ethical risks of participating in the study?
Possible ethical risks of participating in the study were the patient’s confidentiality, receiving the consent from the parents, the stress and worry of the ‘unknown’ and the feelings surrounding the disadvantaged encountered in health and education services (Carlson et la, 2019)
(b) What strategies were used and/or could be used to minimise these risks?
To minimise these ethical risks, strategies were implicated. Initial ‘consent’ packs were given with info about the study. Parents’ consent was documented, and the parents and patients had been assigned pseudonyms, this made sure that the patients’ identities were kept confidential. In the recruitment and interviewing, the interviewees provided a non-judgemental environment and Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander parents were offered to have another family member or health care person in with them during the interview (Carlson et la, 2019).
Question 4: Study Methodology
(a) What the chosen methodology for this study?
The study methods used were semi-structured interviews with parents/caregivers. The questions were guided by the Social Ecological Model (SEM) (Kumar et la 2012). It also included Michie et al’s Behaviour Change Wheel which assessed behaviours and helped understand the parents attitudes about influenza vaccination Michie, 2011).
COM-B
(b) Was this choice suitable for the given study aim/research question? Yes
(c) Explain your response to (b):
Qualitative methodology and research lets you ask questions so when answered, have a deeper understanding or experience associated. It is linked to emotions, feelings and personal views. It cannot be answered in a way filled with numbers and data. Once the information has been received, this is then processed with certain data tools and then analysed (Clealand, 2017).
In this research, they also used the Special Ecological Model which is a model used to predict organisational, intrapersonal interpersonal and community influences. Themes were categorised into the components of the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour model (Carlson et la 2019)
The study focused on the parents knowledge to the influenza vaccination and at the same time, the misinterpretation and knowledge gaps of those parents.
Question 5: Data Collection/Rigour
(a) Describe how the data was collected for this study (interview, observation, etc).
Data was collected by interviews, research and surveillance. They conducted semi-structured interviews which explored all levels of influences of vaccination using the Social Ecological Model (Carlson et la 2019). Parents were approached in hospital or by telephone call by the surveillance nurse. They then received a ‘consent’ pack with further information about the study. Further to receiving the information pack, a follow up call was made to organise a time to interview parents or caregivers (Carlson et la, 2019)
(b) Did the researchers provide the participants with the opportunity to check the collected data
or research findings (i.e. member checking)?
No
(c) Did the researchers continue recruiting people to the study until data saturation was reached?
Yes
(d) Did the study use triangulation (i.e. multiple data collection methods, investigator triangulation or multiple sources of data)?
Yes
(e) Explain how the use (or no use) of member checking, data saturation and triangulation impact on the trustworthiness of the overall research findings.
Question 6: Participants
(a) How many participants were included in the study?
27 participants.
(b) What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria?
(c) Explain how the participants were recruited.
(d) Describe the setting in which the study took place (hospital, community, etc).
Question 7: Research Findings (outcomes)
(a) What were the main findings of this study? (provide a dot point summary)
Question 8: Study limitations
(a) What were the limitations of this study?
(b) Explain why these are study limitations.
(c) Did the researchers disclose any personal ideas, experiences or knowledge that might influence the conduct and outcomes of the study? Yes / No
(d) Explain why personal ideas, experiences or knowledge may reduce the validity of the study
Question 9: Applicability to clinical practice
(a) Choose a suitable Levels of Evidence reference system, rate the Level of Evidence of this study accordingly, and explain your rating.
(b) Overall, should the outcomes of this study be used to inform evidence-based practice?
Yes / No
(c) Explain why the outcomes of this study should or should not be used to inform evidence-based practice.
REFERENCES
Carlson, S, Scanlan, C, Marshall, H, Blyth, C, Macartney, K and Leask, J, 2019, ‘Attitudes about and access to influenza vaccination experienced by parents of children hospitalised for influenza in Australia’, Vaccine, pp. 5994
NMBA
Kumar, S, Quinn, SC, Kim, K, Musa, D, The Social ecological model
Michie 2011 The behaviour change wheel
Cleland, Jennifer Anne. “The qualitative orientation in medical education research.” Korean journal of medical education vol. 29,2 (2017): 61-71. doi:10.3946/kjme.2017.53
Part 2 Reflection (1000 words)
Write a reflection on the learning that you have undertaken in Research Methodology relating to the questions below. If you use supporting references you should reference as per the UniSA Harvard referencing system.
In your reflection, you should consider the following:
• Did you have prior ‘knowledge’ about immunisation safety for children/pregnant women prior to undertaking this assessment? Describe your understanding of this.
• How did you acquire this knowledge (what way/s of knowing/where did the information come from)?
• What was your opinion about the safety of immunisation for children/pregnant women prior to undertaking this assessment?
• How has learning about interpreting research influenced your opinions about immunisation for pregnant women/children?
• Personal beliefs, experiences and trust are known to contribute to one’s health choices and decisions. As a registered nurse and/or midwife, how will you balance a person’s health beliefs with evidence when assisting them with choices about immunisation?