SIM 422 Activity 1 Critical Evaluation of Qualitative or Quantitative Research Study
SIM 422 Activity 1 Critical Evaluation of Qualitative or Quantitative Research Study
Activity 1
Critical Evaluation of Qualitative or Quantitative Research Study
Read: Stevens, K., (2013) The impact of evidence-based practice in nursing and the next big ideas. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 18,(2), Manuscript 4. doi: 10.3912/OJIN.Vol18No02Man04
Critically evaluate either Study 3 or Study 4. Evaluate the credibility of professional citation, research design, and procedures in a research article. Include a discussion on how this study contributes to evidence-based practice.
- Study 3 – Patients’ and partners’ health-related quality of life before and 4 months after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery
- Study 4 – Striving for independence: a qualitative study of women living with vertebral fracture
Suggested Reading
- Schreiber, M. L. (2016). Evidence-Based Practice. Negative Pressure Wound Therapy. MEDSURG Nursing, 25(6), 425-428.
- Stevens, K., (2013) The impact of evidence-based practice in nursing and the next big ideas. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 18,(2), Manuscript 4. doi: 10.3912/OJIN.Vol18No02Man04
- Wakefield, A. (2014). Searching and critiquing the research literature. Nursing Standard, 28(39), 49-57. doi:10.7748/ns.28.39.49.e8867
- LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2018). Nursing research: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice.(9th ed) St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.
Qualitative Specific Resources
- LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2018). Nursing research: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice.(9th ed) St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.
- Chapter1
- Chapter 2
- Chapter 3
- Chapter 7 includes the checklist for qualitative research in Table 7.1 starting on page 115.
Additional Instructions:
- All submissions should have a title page and reference page.
- Utilize a minimum of two scholarly resources.
- Adhere to grammar, spelling and punctuation criteria.
- Adhere to APA compliance guidelines.
- Adhere to the chosen Submission Option for Delivery of Activity guidelines.
| Submission Options | |
| Choose One: | Instructions: |
| Paper | 4 page paper. Include title and reference pages. 5 references |
| Evidenced-Based Practice- Critical Evaluation of Qualitative or Quantitative Research Study | ||||
| Description: The baccalaureate graduate nurse will demonstrate knowledge of research and its utilization in practice. | ||||
| Course Competencies: 1) Examine the relationships among theory, practice, and research. 2) Interpret research findings using the elements of the research process. 3) Differentiate between ethical and legal precepts that guide research conduct and protect human subjects. 4) Integrate reliable evidence from multiple ways of knowing, to inform practice and make clinical judgments. 5) Evaluate data from relevant sources, including technology, to inform the delivery of care to culturally and ethnically diverse populations. 6) Collaborate with health team members to collect, interpret, synthesize and disseminate evidence to improve patient outcomes in complex health care environments. | ||||
| QSEN Competency: 3) Evidence-Based Practice | ||||
| BSN Essential III, IV, VII, IX | ||||
| Area | Gold Mastery | Silver Proficient | Bronze Acceptable | Acceptable Mastery not Demonstrate d |
| Evaluates | Evaluates | Evaluates | Evaluates | Does not address |
| credibility of | credibility of | credibility of | credibility of | section or |
| research article | research article | research article | research article | includes less than |
| the components | the components | using most of the | using one-half of | one-half of the |
| of the | of the | components | the evaluation in | evaluation |
| appropriate evaluation in | appropriate evaluation in | (Greater than 3/4) of the | LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | |
| LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & | ||
| Haber, (2018). | ||||
| Evaluates the | Evaluates the | Evaluates the | Evaluates the | Does not address |
| problem | problem | problem | problem | section or |
| statement and | statement and | statement and | statement and | includes less than |
| research design | research design | research design | research design | one-half of the |
| using the | using the | using most of the | using one-half of | evaluation |
| components of | components of | components of | the evaluation in | |
| the evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | the evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | the evaluation (greater than ¾) in LoBiondo-Wood | LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | |
| & Haber, (2018). | ||||
| Evaluates ethical | Evaluates ethical | Evaluates ethical | Evaluates ethical | Does not address |
| issues in the | issues in the | issues in the | issues in the | section or |
| study using the | study using the | study using 3/4 | study using 3/4 | includes less than |
| components of | components of | of the | of the | one-half of the |
| the evaluation | the evaluation | components of | components of | evaluation |
| checklist in | checklist in | the evaluation | the evaluation | |
| LoBiondo-Wood & Haber (2018). | LoBiondo-Wood & Haber (2018). | checklist in | checklist in | |
| LoBiondo-Wood & Haber (2018). | LoBiondo-Wood & Haber (2018). | |||
| Evaluates the purpose | Evaluates the purpose | Evaluates the purpose | Evaluates the purpose | Does not address section or |
| statement using the components of the evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | statement using the components of the evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | statement using ¾ of the components of the evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | statement using one-half of the components of the evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | includes less than one-half of the evaluation |
| Evaluates the literature review using the components of the evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | Evaluates the literature review using the components of the evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | Evaluates the literature review using ¾ of the components of the evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | Evaluates the literature review using one-half of the components of the evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | Does not address section or includes less than one-half of the evaluation |
| Evaluates the sampling strategy using the components of the evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | Evaluates the sampling strategy using the components of the evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | Evaluates the sampling strategy using 3/4 of the components of the evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | Evaluates the sampling strategy using one-half of the components of the evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | Does not address section or includes less than one-half of the evaluation |
| Evaluates the measurement strategy and validity in quantitative studies using most of the evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). OR Evaluates trustworthiness of data in qualitative studies using most of the components in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | Evaluates the measurement strategy and validity in quantitative studies using most of the evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). OR Evaluates trustworthiness of data in qualitative studies using most of the components in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). . | Evaluates the measurement strategy in quantitative studies using 3/4 of the evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). OR Evaluates trustworthiness of data in qualitative studies using 3/4 of the components in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | Evaluates the measurement strategy in quantitative studies using one-half of the evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). OR Evaluates trustworthiness of data in qualitative studies using one-half of the components . in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | Evaluates the measurement strategy in quantitative studies using one- fourth or less of the evaluation in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). OR Evaluates trustworthiness of data in qualitative studies using one- fourth or less of the components in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). |
| Evaluates how study results may (or may not) be used to inform EBP. | Evaluates how study results may (or may not) be used to inform EBP. | Discusses study results in general but not how findings may or may not contribute to EBP. | Discusses EBP in general but does not relate to the research study. | Does not discuss results or how study findings can inform EBP. |
| APA, Grammar, Spelling, and Punctuation | No errors in APA, Spelling, and Punctuation. | One to three errors in APA, Spelling, and Punctuation. | Four to six errors in APA, Spelling, and Punctuation. | Seven or more errors in APA, Spelling, and Punctuation. |
| References | Provides two or more references. | Provides two references. | Provides one references. | Provides no references. |
SIM422 Activity 1: Critical Evaluation of Qualitative or Quantitative Research Study Example Solution
Evidence-based practice (EBP) has become a cornerstone of nursing practice, promoting the integration of research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient preferences to inform decision-making and improve patient outcomes (Stevens, 2013). One crucial aspect of EBP is evaluating qualitative and quantitative research studies critically to determine their relevance, validity, and applicability to clinical practice. This process involves systematically and thoroughly evaluating the study’s design, methods, results, and ethical implications. This paper will explore the critical evaluation of study 3: Patients’ and partners’ health-related quality of life before and four months after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.
The Credibility of the Research Article
The article “Patients’ and partners’ health-related quality of life before and four months after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery” by Thomson et al. (2013), published in BMC Nursing in 2013, presents a study that explores patients’ and partners’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) before and after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. The article is credible, providing a clear and concise title, introduction, methodology, results, and conclusion. The title is clear and accurate, reflecting the topic and the methods used in the study. The article’s abstract summarizes the study, including the research problem, sample size, methodology, results, findings and recommendations. The study’s findings are supported by statistical analysis, and the discussion presents a thorough interpretation of the results, highlighting the importance of considering partners’ involvement in patients’ pre-operative assessment and the impact of patients’ pre-operative mental health on postoperative outcomes.
Problem Statement and Research Design
The study aims to investigate patients’ and partners’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) before and after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. The problem statement is clear and related to the research questions. The researchers used a prospective research design and recruited 84 patient-partner dyads. The study’s philosophical underpinnings are not explicitly stated, but combining quantitative and qualitative data collection methods suggests a pragmatic research approach (Ranganathan & Aggarwal, 2019). The justification of the study for using this approach is that it allows the researchers to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that contribute to patients’ and partners’ HRQoL before and after CABG surgery.
Ethical Issues in the Study
The study addressed ethical concerns in a variety of ways. Human participants were protected by obtaining written and verbal consent from each of them and providing information about the study and its objective. The research also addressed IRB approval, which the University of Stirling and the local NHS Research and Ethics Committees granted. The nature of the research was disclosed to participants, and mechanisms were implemented to guarantee that they made autonomous decisions. Researchers addressed participants’ autonomy and confidentiality by emphasizing that participation was optional and that data collection would continue with the other person if one member wished to withdraw (Drolet et al., 2022). The ethical issues for the study also included consent to contact patients and couples and the choice to stop data collection if one partner died unless the other partner requested differently.
The Purpose Statement
The study aims to investigate patients’ and their partners’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) before and after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. The study also examines whether socio-demographic characteristics and pre-operative HRQoL of patients and their partners can predict HRQoL four months following surgery. The importance of this study to nursing is that it gives a better knowledge of the changes in HRQoL of both patients and their partners following CABG surgery, which can help develop interventions and support systems to promote their postoperative recovery and overall well-being.
Literature Review
The literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the current knowledge on the factors that influence patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, as well as the potential impact of the patient’s partner or spouse on the recovery process. The review also covers randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies, highlighting the main factors affecting patients’ HRQoL after CABG, such as pre-operative physical health, the severity of angina, and employment status. It also explores the potential role of depression in indicating and influencing the outcome of CABG. Additionally, the review highlights the lack of knowledge about the HRQoL of partners before and after CABG surgery and the potential negative impact that being a caregiver can have on their mental and physical health. The literature review provides a strong foundation for the focus of the study on assessing the HRQoL of both patients and partners before and after CABG surgery, therefore relevant to the study.
Sampling Strategy
A purposive sampling strategy was utilized in the study since individuals were chosen based on precise inclusion and exclusion criteria (Campbell et al., 2020). The informants, patients, and partners chosen to inform the research were appropriate because they were directly involved in the surgery and had shared experiences before and after the operation. The participants and setting were adequately described and appropriate for informing research since the study was conducted in a cardiac surgery OPs clinic of a regional cardiology center in Scotland, where patients and partners were recruited, provided they met the inclusion criteria. The study also achieved saturation since data collection continued until no new themes emerged. The sampling strategy used in this study was generally appropriate and effectively informed the research.
Measurement Strategy and the Validity in Quantitative Studies
The study used both the United Kingdom (UK) version of the medical outcomes short-form 12 health survey (SF-12 UK) and questionnaires which were reliable and valid measures for assessing HRQoL, physical limitation, angina symptoms, treatment satisfaction, emotional, physical, and social functioning in patients and partners. The study used an adequate statistical analysis that included bivariate and hierarchical multiple (logistic) regression models to evaluate the hypotheses. The study generally has a sound measurement strategy and high validity.
How the Results Inform EBP
The study results suggest that partners’ physical and emotional health should be considered part of patients’ pre-operative assessment. Patients’ pre-operative mental health predicted partners’ post-operative emotional, physical, and social functioning. Furthermore, patients’ and partners’ pre-operative HRQoL was also found to explain their poorer post-operative HRQoL. The study implies that interventions targeting both patients and partners can help improve HRQoL outcomes after surgery. These findings inform evidence-based practice in nursing in that nurses should involve patients and their partners in the pre-operative assessment, discharge planning, and cardiac rehabilitation to improve patient outcomes postoperatively.
Conclusion
The critical evaluation of the qualitative study provides insight into the importance of evaluating research studies before incorporating their findings into clinical practice. The study’s credible presentation, clear problem statement, pragmatic research design, ethical considerations, relevant purpose statement, comprehensive literature review, appropriate sampling strategy, and use of valid measurement strategy in the quantitative approach demonstrate the study’s potential usefulness in nursing practice. This study’s results provide a better understanding of the changes in patients’ and partners’ HRQoL after CABG surgery. It can help develop patients’ support systems to promote postoperative recovery and well-being.
References
Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652–661. Sagepub. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206
Drolet, M.-J., Rose-Derouin, E., Leblanc, J.-C., Ruest, M., & Williams-Jones, B. (2022). Ethical issues in research: Researchers’ perceptions, research ethics board members and research ethics experts. Journal of Academic Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-022-09455-3
Ranganathan, P., & Aggarwal, R. (2019). Study designs Part 1 – an overview and classification. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 9(4), 184–186. https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.PICR_124_18
Stevens, K. (2013, May 31). The impact of evidence-based practice in nursing and the next big ideas. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 18(2), 4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23758422/
Thomson, P., Niven, C. A., Peck, D. F., & Eaves, J. (2013). Patients’ and partners’ health-related quality of life before and four months after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. BMC Nursing, 12(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6955-12-16
SIM 422 Activity 2 Evaluating a Quantitative Research Study
Examine the study- Harris, M. F., Chan, B. C., Laws, R. A., Williams, A. M., Davies, G. P., Jayasinghe, U. W., … Milat, A. (2013). The impact of a brief lifestyle intervention delivered by generalist community nurses (CN SNAP trial). BMC Public Health, 13(1). doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-375
In this assessment, you will evaluate the study according to research design methods, procedures and study results, for example, see Evaluating a Quantitative Study LoBiondo-Wood,& Haber (2018).
Suggested Reading
Chapter 7 & 8 LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2018). Nursing research: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice.(9th ed) St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.
Astroth, K. S., & Chung, S. Y. (2018). Focusing on the fundamentals: Reading quantitative research with a critical eye. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 45(3), 283-287. Retrieved from http://americansentinel.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.americansentinel.idm.oclc.org/docview/2063390700?accountid=169658
Chapter 18 includes the checklist for quantitative research table 18.1 starting on page 296.
Additional Instructions:
- All submissions should have a title page and reference page.
- Utilize a minimum of two scholarly resources.
- Adhere to grammar, spelling and punctuation criteria.
- Adhere to APA compliance guidelines.
- Adhere to the chosen Submission Option for Delivery of Activity guidelines.
| Submission Options | |
| Choose One: | Instructions: |
| Paper | 4 page paper. Include title and reference pages. 5 references |
| Evidenced-Based Practice- Evaluating a Quantitative Research Study | ||||
| Description: The baccalaureate graduate nurse will demonstrate an understanding of the basic elements of the research process and models for applying evidence to clinical practice. | ||||
| Course Competencies: 1) Examine the relationships among theory, practice, and research. 2) Interpret research findings using the elements of the research process. 3) Differentiate between ethical and legal precepts that guide research conduct and protect human subjects. 4) Integrate reliable evidence from multiple ways of knowing, to inform practice and make clinical judgments. 5) Evaluate data from relevant sources, including technology, to inform the delivery of care to culturally and ethnically diverse populations. 6) Collaborate with health team members to collect, interpret, synthesize and disseminate evidence to improve patient outcomes in complex health care environments. | ||||
| QSEN Competency: 3) Evidence-Based Practice | ||||
| BSN Essential III | ||||
| Area | Gold Mastery | Silver Proficient | Bronze Acceptable | Acceptable Mastery not Demonstrated |
| Evaluates | Evaluates | Evaluates | Evaluates | Does not address |
| research design | research design | research design | research design | section |
| of study using all | of study using all | of study using | of study using | |
| of the | of the | (75%) | some (50% or | |
| components of | components of | components of | less) components | |
| the evaluation in | the evaluation in | the evaluation in | of the evaluation | |
| LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | |
| Evaluates | Evaluates | Evaluates | Evaluates | Does not address |
| methods/procedu | methods/procedu | methods/procedu | methods/procedu | section |
| re, and results of | re, and results of | res and results of | res and results of | |
| the study using | the study using | the study using | the study using | |
| all of the | all of the | (75%) | some (50% or | |
| components of | components of | components of | less) components | |
| the evaluation in | the evaluation in | the evaluation in | of the evaluation | |
| LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | in LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, (2018). | |
| Discusses the | Discusses the | Discusses the | Provides simple | Does not address |
| importance of | importance of | importance of | definitions of | section |
| research, how the | research, how the | research and how | research and | |
| study contributes | study contributes | the study may | evidence but | |
| to EBP and | to EBP and | contribute to | does not delve | |
| applicability of | applicability of | EBP in general | into the | |
| the specific study | the specific study | but not how the | relationship | |
| to clinical | to clinical | specific study | among research, | |
| practice | practice | contributes to | evidence-based | |
| current clinical | practice and | |||
| practice. | improving | |||
| practice | ||||
| APA, Grammar, Spelling, and Punctuation | No errors in APA, Spelling, and Punctuation. | One to three errors in APA, Spelling, and Punctuation. | Four to six errors in APA, Spelling, and Punctuation. | Seven or more errors in APA, Spelling, and Punctuation. |
| References | Provides two or more references. | Provides two references. | Provides one references. | Provides no references. |
SIM 422 Activity 3 Ethics in Research
View Human Subjects Research Training: “Protecting Human Subjects”
PDF titled PHRP. Reflect on History, Codes and Regulations, Respect for Persons, Beneficence and Justice.
Explore the Research Clinic
1. Think of a vulnerable population as you complete the required components of the assignment.
2. Be able to discuss and differentiate between legal and ethical considerations as it relates to the process of the IRB and the role the IRB plays. Be able to present and discuss the relevant details of: the history of research, codes, respect for person, beneficence, and justice
3. Identify and discuss diverse populations in research and present why there is a need for ethical considerations, examples and rationale are needed.
Resources
National Institute of Health (2008). Protecting Human research participants. Retrieved from https://learn.americansentinel.edu/pluginfile.php/709455/course/section/110371/PHRP%20%282%29.pdf
Additional Instructions:
- All submissions should have a title page and reference page.
- Utilize a minimum of two scholarly resources.
- Adhere to grammar, spelling and punctuation criteria.
- Adhere to APA compliance guidelines.
- Adhere to the chosen Submission Option for Delivery of Activity guidelines.
| Submission Options | |
| Choose One: | Instructions: |
| Paper | 2 -page paper. Include title and reference pages. 3 references |
| Evidence – Based Practice- Ethics in Research | ||||
| Description: The nurse differentiates between ethical and legal precepts that guide research, protect human subjects and guide unique population-based interventions. | ||||
| Course Competencies: 3) Differentiate between ethical and legal precepts that guide research conduct and protect human subjects. 5) Evaluate data from relevant sources, including technology, to inform the delivery of care to culturally and ethnically diverse populations. | ||||
| QSEN Competencies: 3) Evidence-Based Practice 5) Safety | ||||
| BSN Essential III | ||||
| Area | Gold Mastery | Silver Proficient | Bronze Acceptable | Acceptable Mastery not Demonstrated |
| Differentiates between legal and ethical considerations and the role of the IRB | Differentiates between legal and ethical considerations and the role of the IRB | Discusses ethical and legal considerations but does NOT discuss the IRB’s role | Discusses the IRB’s role but does NOT discuss legal and ethical considerations | Does not discuss legal and ethical considerations or the IRB’s role |
| Demonstrates knowledge of Research History, Codes, respect for person, beneficence, and justice | Utilizes knowledge of Research History, Codes, respect for person, beneficence, and justice when discussing vulnerable populations and IRB | Utilizes most of the concepts (2/3) Research History, Codes, respect for person, beneficence, and justice when discussing vulnerable populations and IRB | Utilizes most of the concepts (1/2) Research History, Codes, respect for person, beneficence, and justice when discussing vulnerable populations and IRB | Identifies a vulnerable population of interest but does not relate to research principles |
| Identifies diverse populations in research and supports the need for ethical considerations assertions with sound rationale | Analyzes the need for diverse populations in research. Supports assertions with sound rationale | Analyzes the need for diverse populations in research. However, does not support any assertions. | Defines diverse populations but does not discuss research needs. | Discusses only the needs for ethical precepts when designing research. Does not analyze the need for diverse populations in research. |
| APA, Grammar, Spelling, and Punctuation | No errors in APA, Spelling, and Punctuation. | One to three errors in APA, Spelling, and Punctuation. | Four to six errors in APA, Spelling, and Punctuation. | Seven or more errors in APA, Spelling, and Punctuation. |
| References | Provides two or more references. | Provides two references. | Provides one references. | Provides no references. |
SIM422 Activity 3: Ethics in Research Example Solution
Ethics in research plays a vital role in protecting human subjects from potential damage or exploitation. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is responsible for examining study proposals to verify that they are ethical. Researchers must understand the history of research, norms, and ethical concepts such as respect for humans, beneficence, and justice, especially when working with vulnerable populations. Furthermore, researchers must examine the importance of different populations in the study and explain their inclusion while ensuring that ethical considerations are satisfied.
Compliance with regulations and legislation governing the use of human subjects in research is at the forefront of legal considerations. These regulations protect participants from danger or exploitation. They include informed consent, confidentiality, and data protection requirements (Sng et al., 2019). However, ethical issues go beyond mere legal compliance to guarantee that research is carried out in a morally responsible manner. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviews research proposals to ensure they meet legal and ethical requirements. The IRB is in charge of assessing the risks and benefits of research, ensuring that the informed consent process is adequate, and protecting the rights and welfare of participants (Nesom et al., 2019). The IRB is crucial in supporting ethical research procedures and protecting human subjects from potential damage or exploitation, while legal considerations serve as a minimum standard that must be satisfied in order to meet regulatory obligations.
There were no regulations addressing the ethical use of human subjects in research prior to the 1900s. On December 9, 1946, an American military tribunal initiated criminal proceedings against 23 top German physicians and administrators for their voluntary participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity. Among the allegations was that German doctors conducted medical tests on thousands of concentration camp inmates without permission. As a result of these tests, most subjects died or were severely injured (Weindling, 2022). This resulted in the Nuremberg Code being created in 1948. The history of research has shown that certain populations, such as prisoners, pregnant women, and children, have been subjected to unethical research practices.
Adherence to codes and ethical principles such as respect for persons, beneficence, and justice is essential when conducting research with vulnerable populations. Respect for persons involves treating participants as autonomous agents capable of making informed decisions about their participation in research (Varkey, 2021). Beneficence involves maximizing benefits while minimizing risks to participants. Justice ensures that research benefits and burdens are fairly distributed among participants.
Recognizing the unique needs of vulnerable populations such as prisoners or individuals with mental illness is vital when conducting research involving the human subject. The IRB must take extra precautions to minimize the risks to these populations and protect their rights and welfare (Nesom et al., 2019). The IRB must also evaluate the potential benefits of research for these populations and ensure that they are not exploited for the benefit of others.
The study population should be diverse to ensure that research findings are generalizable and applicable to various people (Burchett et al., 2020). However, it is critical to recognize the distinct needs and vulnerabilities of various populations, particularly vulnerable populations such as ethnic and racial minorities, people with disabilities, and people with limited access to healthcare. Ethical principles such as respect for persons, beneficence, and justice must be implemented to guarantee that participants’ rights and welfare are safeguarded when doing research with various communities. Following ethical principles ensures that research is conducted courteously, responsibly, and useful for all participants.
References
Burchett, H. E. D., Kneale, D., Blanchard, L., & Thomas, J. (2020). More than just differences in population or setting alone is required when assessing generalizability. Trials, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4178-6
Nesom, G. L., Petrof, I., & Moore, T. M. (2019). Operational characteristics of institutional review boards (irbs) in the United States. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 10(4), 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2019.1670276
Sng, B., Yip, C., & Han, N.-L. (2019). Legal and ethical issues in research. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, 60(9), 684–688. NCBI. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.190627
Varkey, B. (2021). Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Medical Principles and Practice, 30(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000509119
Weindling, P. (2022). From the Nuremberg “doctors’ trial” to the “Nuremberg code.” The International Library of Bioethics, 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-01987-6_12
SIM 422 Activity 4 Sample Selection and Application
You will enter Sentinel City® via the link to begin your virtual experience by taking a bus tour of Sentinel City®.
Sentinel City® is a city just like your neighborhood. People live there from culturally diverse backgrounds. They vary in age, gender, and income level. Nurse researchers are unable to study the entire world so they choose “groups” or populations to study that actually mirror the population of interest. Your role is to experience the city and identify the “neighborhood” or sample that would provide the best place to study:
- Geriatrics
- South East Asians
- Poverty
- Pediatrics
Once you have identified the neighborhoods, complete an analysis of any evidence-based practice intervention that applies to one population of your choice and describe how you would implement this in the Sentinel City® neighborhood. Remember, use resources that are interprofessional, evidence-based and focus on improving health outcomes.
Helpful tips:
Don’t forget to view the Sentinel City navigation tips. After choosing an avatar you may be able to teleport to the various areas by utilizing the interactive map.
- How do I find out about the people who live in each neighborhood? How do I find out who lives here? How do I find the city population?
- As you ride through the city you will be able to access the population statistics for each neighborhood. It will open on the left. You may pause the bus to view. You may also teleport to an area and choose the information icon.
- Where can I find information on seniors?
- You may pause the bus and select the rotating icon for specifics about seniors in the city
- What information is available about healthcare use in Sentinel City®?
- The Sentinel City® Healthcare System data is accessible by selecting the rotating icon. This selection will take you to a menu that has information on dentistry, vision, emergency, ambulatory care, integrated services, inpatient, pharmacy, and elderly.
- How do I know whom to sample for a research study?
- The researcher will often choose a population that contains the most number of subjects who have the study topic. For instance, to study children choose the area with the most children
- Where does a nurse find evidence-based practice recommendations?
- Visit the American Nurses Association
- Question: What type of health promoting activity is interprofessional?
- Think broadly consider nutrition (diet), Activity (exercise), Dental health, etc.
Review these core competencies:
- Evidence-Based Practice – Core Competencies: Demonstrate an understanding of the basic elements of the research process and models for applying evidence to clinical practice.
- Sample Selection: Participate in the process of retrieval, appraisal, and synthesis of evidence in collaboration with other members of the healthcare team to improve patient outcomes.
- Interprofessional EBP Guidelines: Integrate evidence, clinical judgment, interprofessional perspectives, and patient preferences in planning, implementing, and evaluating outcomes of care.
- Interprofessional EBP Guidelines: Collaborate in the collection, documentation, and dissemination of evidence.
- Explore Research Literature for EBP Guidelines: Acquire an understanding of the process for how nursing and related healthcare quality and safety measures are developed, validated, and endorsed.
- Application of the PICO Model to Nursing Care: Describe mechanisms to resolve identified practice discrepancies between identified standards and practice that may adversely impact patient outcomes.
Suggested Reading
Read:
LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2018). Nursing research: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice.(9th ed) St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.
- Chapter 2
- Chapter 3
Valerio, M. A., Rodriguez, N., Winkler, P., Lopez, J., Dennison, M., & Yuanyuan Liangrbara, J. T. (2016). Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16 doi:http://dx.doi.org.americansentinel.idm.oclc.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0242-z
Additional Instructions:
- All submissions should have a title page and reference page.
- Utilize a minimum of two scholarly resources.
- Adhere to grammar, spelling and punctuation criteria.
- Adhere to APA compliance guidelines.
- Adhere to the chosen Submission Option for Delivery of Activity guidelines.
| Submission Options | |
| Choose One: | Instructions: |
| Paper | 4 page paper. Include title and reference pages. 5 references |
| Evidenced-Based Practice- Sample Selection and Application | ||||
| Description: Professional nursing practice is grounded in the translation of current evidence into practice. | ||||
| Course Competencies: 1) Examine the relationships among theory, practice, and research. 2) Interpret research findings using the elements of the research process. 5) Evaluate data from relevant sources, including technology, to inform the delivery of care to culturally and ethnically diverse populations. 6) Collaborate with health team members to collect, interpret, synthesize and disseminate evidence to improve patient outcomes in complex health care environments. | ||||
| QSEN Competency: 3) Evidence-Based Practice | ||||
| BSN Essential III | ||||
| Area | Gold Mastery | Silver Proficient | Bronze Acceptable | Acceptable Mastery not Demonstrated |
| Fully detail how the research process is sampling dependent. Describes neighborhoods that reflect the best fit for 1- Geriatrics 2- South East Asians 3- Poverty 4- Pediatrics | Fully details how the research process is sampling dependent. Describes neighborhoods that reflect the best fit for 1- Geriatrics 2- South East Asians 3- Poverty 4- Pediatrics | Describes how research and sampling affect generalizability of findings but does not identify specific populations in Sentinel City® | Superficially describes sampling but does not connect to generalizability of research findings to practice | Identifies populations of interest but does not relate to research applicability |
| Fully detail, with specific example(s), inter- professional evidence-based practice guidelines and states outcomes specific to one area of choosing 1- Geriatrics 2- South East Asians 3- Poverty 4- Pediatrics | Fully details, with specific example(s), inter- professional evidence-based practice guidelines and states outcomes specific to one area of choosing 1- Geriatrics 2- South East Asians 3- Poverty 4- Pediatrics | Describes, with specific example(s) inter professional evidence-based practice guidelines but does not develop outcomes specific to a population | Superficially describes with what evidence- based practice guidelines are available but does not address interprofessional nature or outcomes | Provides suggestions to improve care for population but provides no research/evidence to support |
| Include a PICO model that clearly labels specific population, intervention, comparison and desired outcomes Identifies the need to perform frequent reassessment and adjust plans of care to meet desired outcomes | Includes a PICO model that clearly labels specific population, intervention, comparison and desired outcomes Identifies the need to perform frequent reassessment and adjust plans of care to meet desired outcomes | Includes a PICO model that clearly labels specific population, intervention, comparison and desired outcomes but does not link evidence to quality outcomes and reassessment | Includes a general description of the PICO model. There is no population specific evidence or outcome monitoring suggestions | There is no discussion of the PICO model |
| APA, Grammar, Spelling, and Punctuation | No errors in APA, Spelling, and Punctuation. | One to three errors in APA, Spelling, and Punctuation. | Four to six errors in APA, Spelling, and Punctuation. | Seven or more errors in APA, Spelling, and Punctuation. |
| References | Provides two or more references. | Provides two references. | Provides one references. | Provides no references. |
