Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of research methodologies used in health care settings.

Assignment Brief

This is a 2,000 word systematic critique of one research paper from a choice provided by the module leader, using Caldwell et al’s (2005) critiquing tool.

You are expected to:

• Identify a research study from the selection of papers found on the NS521 Blackboard shell within the assignment Folder. The papers will be uploaded during week 4 of the module.

You will be expected to critique the identified research paper using Caldwell et al’s (2005) critiquing tool. This can also be found in the assignment folder. You must also reference according to the Harvard referencing system.

The essay should include:

1. Introduction - Clear indication of the research paper selected with a rationale for choosing. Make reference to the critiquing tool.
2. Highlight which aspects of the critiquing tool will be focused upon. Critical evaluation of the research paper systematically utilising the critiquing tool.
3. Analysis of the research findings and the implications (or not) for clinical practice.
4. Conclusion – A summary of the main findings.

Learning outcomes

This assignment has been designed to provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate your achievement of the following module learning outcomes:

1. Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of research methodologies used in health care settings.
2. Demonstrate an ability to underpin critical arguments with an appropriate range of contemporary literature.
3. Critically appraise research literature using the required critiquing tool.

Task requirements

Your submitted work must be presented in size 12, Arial font with 1.5 line spacing. The assignment has a word count of 2,000 with + or – 10%. Each page must be numbered. On the title page you must include the following elements:

• Your student number and cohort.
• Module code and name.
• The actual word count.
• The submission date.
• Your seminar leader and module leader’s name.

This assignment should be presented in essay format, with a clear introduction and conclusion. You should avoid use of the 1st and 2nd person and use an appropriately formal academic style, avoiding contractions (e.g., don’t, won’t, etc.) and informal or spoken forms of language. Essays do not typically use headings and sub-headings.

Be sure not to identify any individual or organisation directly or by implication in your work (NMC, 2015).

Equally, unless crucial to the argument and/or where the information is already in the public domain, refer to organisations only in the most general terms, e.g., an NHS trust.

Referencing and research requirements

Please reference your work according to the Harvard style as defined in Cite Them Right Online (http://www.citethemrightonline.com). This information is also available in book form: Pears, R. and Shields, G. (2016) Cite them right: the essential reference guide. 10^th edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Copies are available via the university library.

How your work will be assessed

Your work will be assessed on the extent to which it demonstrates your achievement of the stated learning outcomes for this assignment (see above) and against other key criteria, as defined in the University’s institutional grading descriptors. If it is appropriate to the format of your assignment and your subject area, a proportion of your marks will also depend upon your use of academic referencing conventions.

This assignment will be marked according to the grading descriptors for Level 5.

Submission details

Submission date and time

Work that is submitted up to 10 working days beyond the submission date will be accepted as a late submission. Late submissions will be marked and the actual mark recorded, but will be capped at the pass mark (typically 40%), provided that the work is of a passing standard. Work submitted after this period will not be marked and will be treated as a non-submission.

Feedback and marks for this assignment will be available after 2.00pm on 4^th February 2020.

Please note: You are strongly advised to seek referral support from the module team

Sample Answer

Introduction

Evidence-based practice (EBP) forms the cornerstone of modern healthcare delivery, requiring practitioners to critically appraise research to inform clinical decisions. The aim of this essay is to systematically critique the research paper “The Impact of Nurse-Led Interventions on Hypertension Control in Primary Care” using Caldwell et al.’s (2005) critiquing tool. This tool allows for a comprehensive evaluation of research methodology, ethical considerations, data collection, and analysis, thereby assessing the validity and applicability of the research findings. This critique will focus on the aims of the study, ethical issues, sampling strategy, data collection, data analysis, and implications for clinical practice.

Study Aims and Relevance

Caldwell et al. (2005) emphasise that a well-defined aim is central to any research appraisal. The paper’s stated aim is “to evaluate the effectiveness of nurse-led interventions in improving blood pressure control among hypertensive patients in primary care settings.” This aim is relevant to clinical practice, given the global burden of hypertension and the increasing focus on expanding nursing roles. According to NICE (2021), effective management of hypertension is essential to reduce cardiovascular risk, and nurse-led interventions have been recognised as cost-effective strategies (Mills et al., 2016). Thus, the research addresses a pertinent healthcare issue.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

A comprehensive literature review situates the study within current knowledge. The authors cite recent studies supporting the role of nurse-led care (Brown et al., 2018; Thomas and Green, 2020). However, the theoretical framework is not explicitly stated, which limits the reader’s understanding of the underpinning assumptions. Caldwell et al. (2005) suggest that the absence of a clear theoretical basis can hinder the interpretation of findings. A reference to Orem’s Self-Care Theory, for instance, could have strengthened the rationale for nurse-led interventions in chronic disease management.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical rigour is critical, particularly when involving human participants. The authors obtained ethical approval from a local research ethics committee and secured informed consent from all participants. Confidentiality and data protection measures were described, aligning with NMC (2018) professional standards and GDPR guidelines (UK Government, 2018). Nonetheless, the paper did not address how participants could withdraw from the study, an omission that Caldwell et al. (2005) identify as a key ethical concern. This raises questions about autonomy and participant rights.

Sampling Strategy

Sampling is fundamental to research validity. The study used a purposive sampling method, selecting 100 adult patients with uncontrolled hypertension from three primary care clinics. While purposive sampling can ensure relevant participant inclusion (Polit and Beck, 2021), it may limit generalisability. Caldwell et al. (2005) argue that sampling methods should be justified with consideration of bias and external validity. The authors acknowledged this limitation but did not explore alternative sampling strategies such as randomisation, which might have enhanced the study’s robustness.

Continued...