Evaluation of evidence for practice and gain an insight into the differences between quantitative and qualitative research approaches.

Assignment Brief

Critique of Evidence (2000 words).

The purpose of this assignment is for you to practice evaluation of evidence for practice and gain an insight into the differences between quantitative and qualitative research approaches.

The module team has collated four pairs of research articles relating to four different nursing topics, one of the pair uses a qualitative approach, the other a quantitative approach (These can be found on the module Blackboard).

Your Task

1. Choose a topic that interests you.
2. Complete the appropriate McMaster critiquing frameworks (qualitative and quantitative) for each of the articles you have chosen. You will be referring to these in your assignment so will need to save them and will later attach is to your assignment as appendices. These frameworks must be used. The critiquing frameworks will be also be available on Blackboard.
3. Using the frameworks Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the two articles.
4. Consider the value of the two different approaches (qualitative and quantitative) to the topic you have chosen.
5. Discuss the relevance of the research articles and whether you thought they provided evidence for best practice.

Specific Assignment Guidance

The following is only a suggested structure and guidance on what to include for the critique.

Introduction:

Briefly consider evidence-based practice (EBP) and critical evaluation of evidence.  You should clearly identify the “pair” of articles being critiqued.

Main Body:

First, referring to the critiquing frameworks outline the strengths and weaknesses of the two articles. Focus here on whether they were reliable and relevant and the strength of the evidence they presented (note that the module team might not have chosen perfect or even convincing articles). Provide evidence for your discussion here.

Next, consider the different types of evidence provided by the two different research approaches and if you believe one approach is superior to the other or are they complimentary. Again, provide evidence for your discussion.

Finally make a judgement about the articles - do they provide convincing evidence for practice and should they be utilised to influence nursing practice?  

Conclusion:

Summarise what you have learnt from this exercise and whether is has assisted you to read and evaluate research articles. Has your view on evidence based practice changed in any way

Additional Notes and Pointers

1. The completed McMaster critiquing frameworks, need to be legible, but can be brief. They do not form part of your word count, but MUST be attached to your assignment as appendices.
2. Utilise supporting literature within your assignment, this may be in relation to the research articles topic, and/or research approaches and evidence based practice.
3. Indicate whether the research articles support current practice or argue for a change to current practice.
4. Take nothing on face value, question everything!

Sample Answer

Critique of Evidence: Evaluation of Qualitative and Quantitative Research in Nursing Practice

Introduction

Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) is central to modern nursing care. It ensures that clinical decisions are informed by the best available evidence, enhancing patient outcomes, safety, and healthcare quality (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2019). Critical evaluation of research is a key skill in EBP, allowing nurses to judge the reliability, relevance, and applicability of research findings. This assignment critiques two paired research articles on the topic of pressure ulcer prevention in hospital settings. One article used a quantitative approach, and the other employed a qualitative approach. The McMaster critiquing frameworks were used to evaluate both articles, and are attached as appendices. This paper compares the strengths and weaknesses of both studies and considers their contributions to nursing practice.

Article Selection and Summary

The chosen quantitative study is:
Smith, J. et al. (2022). "Effectiveness of Repositioning Interventions on Pressure Ulcer Incidence in Elderly Patients: A Randomised Controlled Trial." Journal of Clinical Nursing, 31(2), 120–128.

The qualitative study is:
Williams, L. (2021). "Nurses’ Experiences of Pressure Ulcer Prevention Practices in Acute Care: A Qualitative Interview Study." Nursing Inquiry, 28(1), e12456.

The quantitative study evaluates whether scheduled repositioning every two hours reduces the incidence of pressure ulcers in elderly patients. The qualitative study explores nurses` perceptions and challenges in implementing pressure ulcer prevention practices. Both studies address the same topic from different methodological perspectives.

Critique of the Quantitative Study

Strengths

Using the McMaster quantitative framework, several strengths were identified:

• Research Design: The study used a randomised controlled trial (RCT), which is considered the gold standard in quantitative research for determining causality (Polit & Beck, 2021). Randomisation reduces selection bias.

• Sample Size and Power: The study had a large sample size (n = 200), and a power calculation was performed to ensure the results were statistically reliable.

• Clear Intervention: The intervention (two-hour repositioning schedule) was clearly defined, and standardised protocols were followed by all participants.

• Outcome Measures: Pressure ulcer incidence was measured objectively using validated scales (e.g., the Braden Scale), increasing the study’s reliability.

Weaknesses

However, there were also notable limitations:

• Limited Generalisability: The study was conducted in only two hospitals, both in urban settings, which may limit generalisability to rural or community settings.

• Short Duration: The intervention lasted only four weeks, which may not capture long-term effects.

• Potential Confounding: While randomisation was used, the study did not fully account for comorbidities or staffing levels, which could influence pressure ulcer outcomes.

Continued...