Quality of Research
Critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of published research/evidence in order to inform current and future practice which addresses national and local health care provision.
Read the attached article “Parents’ and healthcare professionals’ perceptions of the quality of care: A PITSTOP model of caring”, in the assessment please refer to this as the paper or research rather than referencing it throughout, as we are conscious the word count is limited and we will know what you are referring to.
I have attempted to find an article that all three professions can relate to, however, the subject area isn’t important as we want you to assess the quality of the research process and consider
• The validity?
• The reliability?
• The generalisability?
• The research process?
• The sample and data collection?
• The analysis?
Also, consider the trustworthiness of the paper which may be incorporated in some of the elements above assessment techniques.
As mentioned in the units it is important to be able to judge what is good or bad research (although not necessarily indicating this is bad research) and if what is produced is worthy of consideration when developing practice.
The structure of your assessment must include an analysis of the article in terms of the above criteria and include references relating to the research process, for example why these criteria are important and how you judge them in terms of this article.
General Assessment Guidance
The word length for the assignment is 1000 words and you are expected to write as near to the word limit as possible. A leeway of 10% is allowed so, for an essay of 1000 words, the acceptable limit is no more than 1100 words and no less than 900 words.
Quality of Research
The study by Wei et al. (2019) aimed at understanding the perceptions of healthcare professionals and parents related to the quality of care. The study mainly relied on secondary analysis of two qualitative studies that had been conducted in 2014 and 2018 and examined the parents’ and healthcare professionals’ perceptions of caring.
According to Noble & Smith (2019), the validity of a research study is a reference to how the results of a given study will represent the true findings among similar research participants in a different study. In a qualitative study such as Wei et al. (2019), validity referrers to the appropriateness of the data processes and tools used. In the study, the data is collected through face-to-face interviews directed to the research participants, who include healthcare professionals and parents. The face-to-face interviews utilized in the reviewed qualitative study are therefore a valid way of collecting qualitative data. Face-to-face interviews allow for the collecting of in-depth qualitative data from research participants and the adoption of adaptive strategies that can help to collect more data from research participants (Leung, 2017). Wei et al.’s (2019) study is also valid in that it relies on the descriptive quantitative analytic framework to analyze data accurately. This analytical framework has therefore been previously recommended by numerous scholars because of its validity (Patino & Ferreira, 2018). The study also relies on different suggestions to maintain the rigor of qualitative research, which include fittingness, assurance of credibility, confirmability, and audibility, which increase the validity (Cypress, 2017). Wei et al.’s (2019) study is also valid because it relies on a model of caring that connects different variables, including healthcare and the encounters of patients and the quality of patient care.
According to Molina et al. (2018), reliability in qualitative research refers to the consistency of study results. Highly reliable measures will therefore produce similar results under different conditions. For reliable studies, repeated testing is therefore expected to produce similar results if all the conditions are held equal Matheson, (2019). In qualitative research, a margin of the variability of results may therefore be tolerated provided the epidemiological and methodology logistics use the data that might be similar ontologically (Nájera Catalán & Gordon, 2019). Wei et al.’s (2019) study is reliable because the utilization of the in-depth face-to-face interviews as data collection methods and also relying on the descriptive qualitative analytic framework for data analysis among different groups of research participants, including patients and healthcare practitioners, would yield the same results. The healthcare providers’ and parents’ perception of quality care which is highlighted by the PITSTOP model, would therefore be expected even if diverse research participants were recruited for different qualitative studies (Hackett & Strickland, 2019).
According to Kukull & Ganguli (2017), generalizability will be the extent to which the findings of a particular study will be applicable in other different settings. Generalizability is also referred to as external validity. Through generalizability, a decision can therefore be made on whether the findings of a given study will be applicable to particular groups (Carminati, 2018). In deciding whether a study is different generalizable factors such as the characteristics of research participant’s interventions and the exposures present in the study, as well as the setting of the study, have to be considered (Kreiter & Zaidi, 2020). Wei et al.’s (2019) study was generalizable because it relies on research participants who include healthcare practitioners and parents. The study also considered research participants from diverse groups while considering outcomes such as patient-centered care, interprofessional collaboration, trusting relationship, effective team communication, optimal outcomes, safety and security, and positive patient experiences. Wei et al.’s (2019) study was generalizable because the research participants were representative of the general population. Further interventions adopted could also be adaptable in general populations.
Wei et al. (2019) was a secondary data analysis that included two qualitative studies that focused on examining the perceptions of caring from the perspectives of healthcare professionals and parents. One of the considered qualitative studies was published in 2014, while the other was published in 2018. Both of the considered qualitative studies were phenomenological and provided a big leeway for researchers to try and discuss the meaning of the phenomenon. As a secondary study, Wei et al. (2019) concentrated on previous elements and perspectives of the two explored studies, which were not considered in previous studies.
Sample and Data Collection
Both the studies considered in Wei et al. (2019) were conducted in a children’s hospital in the United States. In both of the studies, the research participants included parents and healthcare professionals, with at least 40 participants being considered for both studies. In the considered studies, data was collected through face-to-face interviews, which allowed the researchers to ask more in-depth questions and to be able to modify research questions depending on the answers they received from research participants (Saarijärvi & Bratt, 2021). Face-to-face interviews allowed for the collection of in-depth data. The data was also analyzed through the use of a qualitative analytic framework which has been utilized by various scholars and which has been found to be quite effective in the analysis of qualitative data (Gale et al., 2019).
Wei et al., (2019) secondary data analysis produced seven themes that are important to the provision of healthcare services and which were evident in the two reviewed studies. These themes included trusting relationships, safety and security, patient-centered care, team communication, interprofessional collaboration, positive patient experiences, and optimal outcomes. Wei et al. (2019) helped to highlight the most important elements that are viewed as central to the quality of care before healthcare professionals and parents. The consideration of such elements in healthcare facilities helped to improve the quality of care provided to patients.
Wei et al. (2019) study is trustworthy because it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. The study was also currently having been published in 2019. The authors of the study are healthcare professionals, including registered nurses and physicians, who have adequate experience to evaluate the different issues considered in the study and also help to increase the study’s trustworthiness (Nowell et al., 2017).
Carminati, L. (2018). Generalizability in Qualitative Research: A Tale of Two Traditions. Qualitative Health Research, 28(13), 2094–2101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318788379
Cypress, B. S. (2017). Rigor or Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 36(4), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1097/dcc.0000000000000253
Gale, R. C., Wu, J., Erhardt, T., Bounthavong, M., Reardon, C. M., Damschroder, L. J., & Midboe, A. M. (2019). Comparison of rapid vs in-depth qualitative analytic methods from a process evaluation of academic detailing in the Veterans Health Administration. Implementation Science, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0853-y
Hackett, A., & Strickland, K. (2019). Using the framework approach to analyse qualitative data: a worked example. Nurse Researcher, 26(2), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2018.e1580
Kreiter, C., & Zaidi, N. B. (2020). Generalizability Theory’s Role in Validity Research: Innovative Applications in Health Science Education. Health Professions Education, 6(2), 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2020.02.002
Kukull, W. A., & Ganguli, M. (2017). Generalizability: The trees, the forest, and the low-hanging fruit. Neurology, 78(23), 1886–1891. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0b013e318258f812
Leung, L. (2017). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 4(3), 324. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.161306
Matheson, G. J. (2019). We need to talk about reliability: making better use of test-retest studies for study design and interpretation. PeerJ, 7, e6918. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6918
Molina, K. M., Molina, K. M., Goltz, H. H., Kowalkouski, M. A., Hart, S. L., Latini, D., Turner, J. R., Turner, J. R., Rosenberg, L., Piper, S., Rosenberg, L., Piper, S., Wolf, T., Estabrooks, P. A., Harden, S. M., Allen, K. C., Rodriguez-Murillo, L., Salem, R. M., Turner, J. R., . . . Gidron, Y. (2018). Reliability and Validity. Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine, 1643–1644. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_1549
Nájera Catalán, H. E., & Gordon, D. (2019). The Importance of Reliability and Construct Validity in Multidimensional Poverty Measurement: An Illustration Using the Multidimensional Poverty Index for Latin America (MPI-LA). The Journal of Development Studies, 56(9), 1763–1783. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2019.1663176