Is the study setting clearly described?

The purpose of this assessment is to critique 2 research articles using the checklist supplied on Moodle.
It is recommended that you review the evidence from the above website – however, you can locate other evidence using the UOW databases. Your 2 articles should be related or have commonalities, e.g. both on the best methods of using inhalers.
The task includes the following steps:
1. Using the Australian Asthma Handbook or the UOW databases find 2 research articles:
2. Identify the levels of evidence for each article.
3. Critique each research article using the supplied guidelines. (500 words for each article) and put the supplied guidelines in appendix
4. Select one idea from each of your articles and combine (synthesis) these 2 ideas into a discussion (500 words) about the change in practice in relation to the self-management of asthma you have selected.
Subject Learning Outcomes
2 and 4
Marking Criteria The marking criteria for this assessment task is available in this guide.
SUPPLIED GUIDELINE:
PUT these in appendix
Quantitative Critique
Elements Questions Yes/no/maybe Paper
Report title
Is the title clear, accurate and unambiguous?
Authors Are the researchers qualified to undertake research?
How was the study funded (and if industry what was there involvement)?
Are conflicts of interest reported?
Abstract Does the abstract provide a clear overview of the study including research problem, sample, design/methods, results, discussion and recommendations?
Introduction/ literature review Is the review logically organized? Does it offer a balanced critical analysis of the literature (which is from recent primary empirical sources)?
• Purpose/research problem
Are these clearly identified?
Methods/Design Is a clear research design outlined and does it fit the RQ?

• Aims/objectives/research question/ hypothesis Have these been clearly identified, and if so, do they reflect the literature, and purpose & research problem?
• Study outcome (validity-measurement) What were the primary and secondary outcomes?
If involving patients were these patient-centred and clinically meaningful?

• Sample (Validity – sample) Was the target population clearly identified?
What was the sampling framework, including inclusion and exclusion criteria?
Was a sample size calculated and was it achieved?
Does this fit the research design?
If RCT how was randomisation performed (selection bias)?
• Setting (generalisability) Is the study setting clearly described?
Single or multicentre; type of hospital or other; country?
• Ethical considerations Was the autonomy and confidentiality of the participants guaranteed? How were they protected from harm?
Is there an explicit statement regarding ethical permission?
• Intervention/ control (generalisability) If experimental, are these clearly described?
Were both groups treated equally except for the experiment
• Blinding (Validity – sample & measurement) Were researchers blinded to group allocation (allocation concealment)
Who were blinded to treatment: patients, treating clinicians (performance bias), outcome assessors (detection bias)
• Data collection (validity – measurement) What data was gathered, how was this done and was there quality control?
Was a valid and reliable instrument used, or if not, were these assessed during research?
If a researcher developed instrument was used, was the development method described?
• Data analysis (reliability) How the data was analysed and was this appropriate for the design?

“Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us” Use the following coupon FIRST15

Posted in Uncategorized