Recognizing Quality Research
1). Choose a topic in healthcare & do a search of information on the topic. Discuss how information is discovered, what tools used & any other specific actions to narrow the info chosen
2). Analyze the quality info & the pertinence of the info to specific ideas
3). Appraise info for appropriate content & context to current healthcare delivery
4). Challenges in recognizing quality research – access information is overwhelming, not all info is correct & not all info is applicable to all situation. How to recognize info that is pertinent to a specific focus & how to understand the context of the information
Recognizing Quality Research
Self-care for nurses is an essential issue within modern healthcare delivery systems. Purdue University (2019) defines self-care as a collection of deliberate actions by caregivers to maintain or improve their physical, psychological, and spiritual health. This definition resonates with what most healthcare professionals believe nursing self-care to be. However, there are differences in what they believe to be acceptable self-care status. Different clinical and cultural settings also provide nurses with diverse interventions to maintain and enhance their well-being. Thus, an online search from popular search engines such as Google and Google Scholar introduces one to the topic. One can use location and date restrictions tools to find the most relevant results. Additionally, one can narrow the information results by searching for specific interventions in certain cultural or clinical settings, e.g., nurses’ self-care during the COVID-19 pandemic or self-care for nurses attending to underserved populations/ mental health/ end-of-life patients. While the results may share some recurring themes, they allow for objective exploration of the topic.
Couser et al. (2020) discuss an educational program for nurses to promote self-care. The intervention’s focus is reducing burnouts incidence among caregivers. Their article includes a comprehensive introduction that justifies the need for the intervention and the evidence that specific interventions, such as better dietary, sleeping, and movement habits, have on nurses’ well-being. Hence, the educational program would empower the caregivers to engage in these healthier behaviors. Thus, the information is relevant to the primary topic (nurses’ self-care). The elaborate methodological description highlights the information’s quality. Another article, Mills et al. (2018), reports a qualitative investigation into palliative caregivers’ understanding and practice of self-care. The findings are relevant to the clinical area since they highlight the need for a holistic approach. They also elucidate professional and non-professional strategies and factors affecting self-care efficacy. The information is also high-quality since it narrows its focus to a specific clinical population with varying viewpoints.
The information in both articles contains appropriate details for nurses’ self-care. While Couser et al. (2020) focus on a broader educational program, they support their intervention with accurate statistics. Their rationale for nurses’ inclusion in developing and implementing the solution also enhances their findings’ accuracy. Furthermore, they included the current healthcare delivery dynamics by creating relatable evaluation statements for determining nurses’ health patterns. Similarly, Mills et al.’s (2018) information is appropriate to palliative care settings. The clinical specificity ensures that the information they gather and generate applies to all palliative nurses, regardless of socio-cultural context. The researchers’ findings also relate to the current palliative care setting since they allow feedback on contemporary issues, such as challenges and enablers of self-care.
Recognizing quality research can be challenging. For instance, information could be invalid. Some sources publish false information, rendering their findings invalid. Often, the lack of accuracy is common if the sources are marketing-oriented. Another challenge relates to information reliability. The data publishers could be reporting their honest findings, but their tools to collect and analyze the information are unreliable or outdated. Hence, a secondary researcher must check the reliability of the information-generating tools before considering the findings. Finally, one must determine the data’s pertinence and contextual appropriateness by evaluating its generalizability (Carminati, 2018). One assesses the context of data generation and compares it to a specific or contemporary setting. In so doing, one can establish whether the information is sensible to a global population or whether it requires customization before implementing it.
Carminati, L. (2018). Generalizability in Qualitative Research: A Tale of Two Traditions. Qualitative Health Research, 28(3), 2094-2101. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1049732318788379
Couser, G., Chesak, S., Cutshall, S. (2020). Developing a Course to Promote Self-Care for Nurses to Address Burnout. The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol25No03PPT55
Mills, J., Wand, T., & Fraser, J. A. (2018). Exploring the meaning and practice of self-care among palliative care nurses and doctors: a qualitative study. BMC Palliative Care, 17(63). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-018-0318-0
Purdue University. (2019, Feb. 13). The Importance of Self-Care for Nurses and How to Put a Plan in Place. https://www.purdueglobal.edu/blog/nursing/self-care-for-nurses/