Critique of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Studies - Assignment Example

Critique of quantitative and qualitative research studies Critique of quantitative and qualitative research studies This is a three-phased critique of research studies. One of the studies is a quantitative research study by Creedon, and the other is a qualitative research study by Saint et.al. Part 1 1.1 Quantitative Study Title The quantitative research by Creedon (2006) is entitled “healthcare workers’ hand decontamination practices: an Irish study.” This title is not very straightforward and could have been more concise if the researcher had stated the issue first-hand decontamination practices- before stating who is affected by the issue-healthcare workers-. Abstract The abstract is professionally done as it clearly identifies the research problem, the sample used, the methodology used in data collection, and the results of the study. However, the researcher does not give any recommendations for the findings. Introduction The researcher introduces the scope of the research by stating that all health care workers are required to comply with hand-hygiene guidelines and provides the rational for this practice and thus, the study. However, the researcher does not provide an outline of how the issues relating to compliance are going to be addressed within the report. Statement of the problem Creedon (2006) states the main research problem as the “health care workers’ observance of the hand-hygiene rules during patient care in an ICU in Ireland before and after execution of a multifaceted hand-hygiene program,” in addition to the attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs of health workers in relation to the hand-hygiene program. Research questions The researcher is very precise in stating the research questions relating to this particular study. The first research question relates to what effects the multifaceted approach would have on the compliance to hand washing guidelines by health care workers. Additionally Creedon (2006) questions the effects that a multifaceted hand-hygiene program might have on the beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes of health care workers. Literature review The literature review has been arranged in a logical order. The researcher has gone from the general idea of how hand washing relates to infection, to giving data on how many persons are affected and the costs of treatment. However, the review is not balanced as the researcher only focuses on the reasons and consequences of non-compliance, without giving information existing compliance rates. Additionally, most of the reviewed materials are relatively old, with some being published in the 1980s. Theoretical framework The research identifies its theoretical framework as lifting the standards of health interventions by encouraging behavioral change among health care professionals (Creedon, 2006). However, although the framework is appropriate for this study, it does not provide an adequate description of how the behavior change will be implemented in order to achieve the desired results. 1.2 Qualitative Study Title The title of the qualitative research by a Saint et.al is “A multicenter qualitative study on preventing hospital acquired urinary tract infection in US hospitals.” This title clearly states the issue being studied although the term “multicenter” is somewhat ambiguous as it is not clear which centers are in reference. Abstract The abstract provides an overview of the methods, the objectives, the outcomes, and conclusions of the study. It adequately prepares the reader on what to expect in the report. Introduction The introduction is very straightforward and comprehensive as it addresses the rational behind the study, by stating that “infections acquired during hospitalization are common, costly, and associated with significant morbidity” (Saint et.al, 2008). The researcher also justifies the use of qualitative analysis in conducting the study. Statement of the problem The phenomenon of interest in this study is concerned with the reasons behind the high rates of UTI infections acquired in hospitals and the various ways of reducing these infections. Research questions The report contains neither a research questions nor a hypotheses section. One is forced to read through the introductory section in search of the research question which is the “variation of preventive practices for hospital acquired UTIs across the United States” (Saint et.al, 2006). The implication this gives is that different centers use different methods to prevent UTIs. Literature review It is difficult to classify this report as a scholarly source since it lacks a literature review section. This interprets that there is no means of telling which sources the researchers used in coming up with some of the claims within the report. For example, the claim that hospital-acquired UTIs account for approximately 40% of all nosocomial infections cannot be substantiated. Conceptual underpinnings The report does not provide any conceptual underpinnings for the research. Part 2 2.1 Quantitative Study Method Creedon (2006) uses observational schedule and a self-report questionnaire as the research instruments. The former seems more appropriate since it is not as prone to deceit as a self report, in addition to being designed according to the guiding principle of CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). The researcher undertook validity and reliability tests and adequately provides the results. The pilot study conducted is appropriate in that it took place in the ICU unit of a university and the results properly documented. Protection of human rights The research does not provide detailed information concerning how human rights were protected during the study period. Creedon (2006) only mentions that only the willing healthcare professionals were used in the study. Research design The research design used has a lot of biases primarily the fact that it did not have a control group, thus predisposing the study to the Hawthorne effect. Secondly, self-reporting may lead to information omission. Despite this, it is commendable that the study participants are randomly selected from among the many health care workers within the hospital. Population and sample The study subjects total up to 135 participants including nurses, doctors, physiotherapists, and care assistants (Creedon, 2006). This is an appropriate sample size for a hospital whose bed capacity in the ICU is 8. The selection criterion is based on being a full-time worker in the ICU, involvement in direct delivery of patient care, and willingness to participate in the study, thus clearly defining the inclusion and exclusion criterion used. Data collection and measurement During the pretest and posttest stages of observation, data was recorded on a checklist. This is the most appropriate way of collecting observational data. In self-reporting, the time given to fill in the questionnaires was not enough considering that the health care workers were given 3 to 4 to complete. The researcher does not provide information on why 14 issued questionnaires were not returned. Procedures The procedure involved the researcher sitting at a strategic place and observing the healthcare workers without alerting them that they were being monitored. This reduced the Hawthorne effect to some degree, although the participants still knew that they were generally under observation. 2.2 Qualitative Study Method The research employed the use of a detailed national survey and interviews with key personnel in hospitals. However, these methods are prone to inaccuracy as no way of ruling out if the key personnel were being truthful in their interviews and in data entry in the survey forms is evident. Protection of participants’ rights The account does not hold any information on whether or how the rights of the participants were protected, considering that they were giving crucial information about their respective hospitals. Additionally, it is not mentioned if participation in the study was voluntary or mandatory. Research design and research tradition Saint et.al (2008) used “purposeful” sampling in selecting hospitals so as to acquire an in-depth understanding of the problem under investigation, as opposed to the more general “representative” sampling. The primary selection criteria for the hospitals was hospital size in terms of small (less than 250 beds) and large (more than 251 beds). Sampling and setting A total of 179 hospitals were surveyed, telephone interviews conducted on key personnel from 14 hospitals, and face-to-face interviews of key personnel from 5 of the 14 hospitals. The main question here, however, is why the researchers chose to interview only 14 hospitals for interviewing yet the surveys were sent out to very many hospitals. Did most of the personnel refuse to be interviewed? If so, what were the reasons? Data collection Saint et.al used semi-structured phone interviews through open ended questions, with each hospital having 2-4 recorded interviews. The application of open-ended questions is a fine strategy as it ensures that the interviews gives more information as opposed to “yes” and “no” questions. The recording is also commendable since it is enough evidence that indeed the interviewee did give such information. Procedures The procedure for data collection involved interviewing, recording, transcribing, sampling, coding, and analysis of information. All these activities made sure that none of the information gathered was lost and that information was fully analyzed. Enhancement of trustworthiness There is no mention of how the researchers proved their trustworthiness to the participants of the study or the feedback from the participants indicating any good relations. Part 3 3.1 Quantitative Study Results The research clearly provides the results of the study, stating that the pretest showed 51% compliance level, while the posttest had 83% compliance level. This therefore shows that the multifaceted program does have a positive impact on the compliance with hand-hygiene practices by health workers, as well as improving the attitudes of the latter on hand-hygiene practices. Data analysis An empirical analysis of the collected data was conducted generally suing the nonpaired t test. For the observation, the chi-square was used and the subscale for the questionnaires. These data analysis tools are very effective for the variables measured. Findings The researcher is able to link the findings back to the research questions and show how positively a multifaceted approach contributes towards better hand-hygiene practices (Creedon, 2006). Discussion The discussion is commendable in that the researcher discusses the outcomes of the study in regard to the literature review earlier on conducted. Additionally, lack of a long-term follow up in the study and the absence of a control group are identified as among the limitations of the study (Creedon, 2006). However, the researcher does not identify self-report as a possible limitation to the study. Recommendations The study recommends that health workers be exposed to hand-hygiene practices are early as possible, probably during their education. Additionally, Creedon (2006) recommends further research to ensure that high levels of compliance are maintained. Global issues The researcher is able to apply the results of the study to cover a global picture by stating that all disciplines dealing with patient care should pay close attention to hand-hygiene, thus calling for a multidisciplinary strategy to the problem. Presentation The report is presented in a concise and logical manner with clear transitions from one element to another. However, Creedon (2006) uses some jargons that are not explained in the report, for example by stating that confidence intervals were calculated in “MATLAB statistical package.” Researcher credibility Creedon holds an MSc Nursing (Research) degree among other nursing qualifications, in addition to a BSc Nursing degree from the University College Cork, Ireland. These indicate that the researcher has vast knowledge in this field. Summary assessment The researcher does not provide a conclusion for the study. 3.2 Qualitative Study Results The results of the study identified the various techniques used by different hospitals in preventing hospital-acquired UTIs, with catheter removal being the most common practice among the hospitals that do actually prioritize UTI prevention. Data analysis The data analysis was conducted concurrently with data collection so as to ensure focus on emergent topics (Saint et. al, 2008). Interview summaries, a qualitative codebook, and code summary results done through NVivo software were used to analyze the collected data. Regular team meetings ensured that all angles were covered during data analysis. Findings The major finding was that most hospitals do not prioritize the prevention of these infections (Saint et.al, 2008). Additionally, external forces such as public reporting and directives are mostly responsible for any measures taken to reduce the UTIs. Theoretical integrations The theoretical underpinning of this research is to prevent hospital-acquired UTIs, by analyzing the various techniques used in achieving this, such as delayed discharge, and the use of dedicated champions of prevention. Discussion A very informative discussion as it places the report in the context of the high rates of UTIs acquired in hospitals. The only limitation is that findings are non-applicable to general situations (Saint et. al, 2008). However, researchers do not mention that the key personnel interviewed could have provided biased information thus rendering the report inaccurate. Interpretation of the findings The interpretation by the researchers of the findings implied that the trend in the hospitals under study was applicable to other hospitals, especially the issue of not prioritizing the prevention of hospital-acquired UTI. Only considering the initial surveys sent to the hospitals, this interpretation might be viable but if findings are from the 14 hospitals, then the generalization may not be valid. Global issues The report states that the findings contained therein should be used in helping clinicians and policy makers in designing strategies that can be used in reducing UTIs in hospitals (Saint et.al, 2008). This implies that hospital-acquired UTIs are not only specific to the hospitals under study or the united states alone. Presentation The report is relatively well presented with a logical arrangement of the sections. The researchers, nevertheless, use certain jargon such as “NVivo software” that are may not be easily understood by the layman. Researcher credibility The researchers’ biographies are impressive, for example, Sanjay Saint holds an MPH and Sarah Krein holds a PhD. This implies that the researchers are adequately knowledgeable in this field of research. Summary assessment The researchers do not have a “summary” section although the concluding remarks area call to stakeholders in the health care industry to put the findings of this study into use in an effort to reduce hospital-acquired UTIs. This shows that the researchers are confident in their report and believe that these findings can actually make a change in the health care sector. References Creedon, S. A. (2006). Health Care Workers’ Hand Decontamination Practices. Clinical Nursing Research, 15 (1): 6-26. Saint, S. Kowalski, C. Forman J. Damschroder, L. Hofer, T. Kaufman, S. Creswell, J. & Krein, S. (2008). A Multicenter Qualitative Study on Preventing Hospital-Acquired Urinary Tract Infection in US Hospitals. Infection Control Hospital Epidemiology, 29 (4): 333-341. Read More