Great Deal! Get Instant $10 FREE in Account on First Order + 10% Cashback on Every Order Order Now

This assessment task provides the opportunity to demonstrate students’ understanding of the differentresearch philosophies and methodologies covered throughout the unit.Students will critically review...

1 answer below »

This assessment task provides the opportunity to demonstrate students’ understanding of the differentresearch philosophies and methodologies covered throughout the unit.Students will critically review and analyseone of the below-given researcharticleswith anin-depthdiscussion, justification and analysis of methodology andmethods. Students are required toprovide asummary of the review at the end to demonstrate a well-developed understanding of the validity andreliability/trustworthiness of the research study.

For this assessment:

Identify a research study from the options given below.

Analyse and critically Review using the appropriate Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP) tool.

Argue and Justify whether the methodology and methods are appropriate to address the research problem.

Students are required to articulate, discuss and justify the strengths and weaknesses using relevant supporting evidence.

Assessment criteria:

Your assignment must have an introduction, a body (which is the content of your analysis) and a conclusion.

Use at least 10 additional peer-reviewed journal articles using APA 7th FORMAT/guidelines to support your analysis. Information cited from an unreliable website, pamphlets or magazines is notacceptablefor this paper.

Research articles:

Barakat-Johnson M., Lai M., Wand T., White, K. (2019)A qualitative study of the thoughts and experiences of hospital nurses providing pressure injury prevention and management(Links to an external site.),Collegian 26:95-102

Olason, M. Andrason, R. H., Jonsdottir, I. H., Kristbergsdottir, H. (2018)Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression and Anxiety in an Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation Program for Chronic Pain: a Randomized Control Trial with a 3-year Follow-up(Links to an external site.), Int J Behav. Med 25:55-66

Assessment Tool

CASP Randomised Controlled Trials Checklist

https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/CASP_RCT_Checklist_PDF_Fillable_Form.pdf(Links to an external site.)

(Links to an external site.)CASP Qualitative Study Checklist

https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018.pdf(Links to an external site.)

Rubric

Critical analysisCritical analysis
CriteriaRatingsPts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFocus and Introductory Statement
5to >4.0ptsExcellent = HDThere is a clear introduction that outlines the topic, and contextualises and profiles the scope, content and the sequence of the essay topic. the introduction does not outline the topic.4to >3.0ptsGood = DThere is a clear introduction that outlines the topic, and profiles the scope, content and the sequence of the essay topic.3to >2.5ptsFair = CThere is a clear introduction that outlines the topic, and profiles the content and the sequence of the essay topic.2.5to >2.0ptsPoor = PThere is a clear introduction that outlines the topic and the content to be covered.2to >0ptsFail=NThere is no introduction and/or the introduction does not outline the topic.
5pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking, Reasoningand Evaluation of the Evidence in articles
15to >13.0ptsExcellent = HDThere is evidence of both depth and breadth of reading. A clear, well-constructed and balanced argument is presented which demonstrates substantial originality, comprehensive organisation and synthesis of the evidence and a well-developed understanding of the current state of knowledge on the topic. Argument is consistently and appropriately supported by valid, varied and current evidence.13to >11.0ptsGood = DThere is evidence of breadth of reading. A clear, well-constructed argumentis presented which demonstrates comprehensive organisation and synthesis of the evidence and a well-developed understanding of the current state of knowledge on the topic. Argument is well supported by appropriate valid, varied and current evidence.11to >8.0ptsFair = CThere is inconsistent evidence of breadth of reading. A clear argument is presented which demonstrates organisation and synthesis of the evidence and sound understanding of the current state of knowledge on the topic. Argument is supported by appropriate and varied evidence.8to >7.0ptsPoor = PThere is limited evidence of breadth of reading. A clear argument is presented which demonstrates organisation of the evidence and understanding of the current state of knowledge on the topic. Argument is supported by appropriate and adequate evidence7to >0ptsFail=NThere is no evidence of breadth of reading. A summary of the evidence is presented. No clear argument is presented and/or understanding is not clearly demonstrated. Argument presented is not appropriately supported by evidence and/or appears biased.
15pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLanguage awareness and appropriateness to target audience
5to >3.0ptsExcellent = HDThe language is appropriate for the target audience and suits the purpose for which the essay is intended. Suitable professional language/ terminology is integrated.3to >2.0ptsGood = DThe language is appropriate for the target audience and suits the purpose for which the essay is intended.2to >1.0ptsFair = CThe language is appropriate for the target audience and mostly suits the purpose for which the essay is intended.1ptsFail=NThe language is appropriate for the target audience. However, it does not suit the purpose for which the essay is intended.1to >0ptsPoor = PThe student fails to address the relevant items and the explanations, descriptions and discussions were irrelevant.
5pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStudent use of the content, evidence and examples for the appraisal of the article, relevance of the content, evidence and examples
15to >13.0ptsExcellent = HDThe content is relevant to the topic. Perceptive and comprehensive identification and discussion of main ideas, themes, strengths and limitations of the articles. Very high-level understanding of the topic area is demonstrated. High quality evidence and examples are presented.13to >10.0ptsGood = DThe content is relevant to the topic. Comprehensive identification and discussion of main ideas, themes, strengths and limitations of the articles. High level understanding of the topic area is demonstrated. Appropriate evidence and examples are presented.10to >8.0ptsFair = CThe content is relevant to the topic. The main ideas, strengths and limitations of the articles are identified with some discussion presented. Understanding of the topic area is demonstrated. Evidence and examples of varying quality are presented.8to >7.5ptsPoor = PMost content is relevant to the topic. Some of the main ideas, strengths and limitations of the articles are presented. Discussion is evident but superficial. Understanding of the topic area is demonstrated in a limited way. Evidence and examples of varying quality are presented.7.5to >0ptsFail=NThe content is partly relevant to the topic. Some of the main ideas or themes or strengths or limitations of the articles are identified. No discussion is evident or is not relevant. Understanding of the topic area is demonstrated in a very limited way. Evidence and examples are minimal
15pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStructureLogical ordering of ideas; transitions between major points
5to >4.0ptsExcellent = HDHeadings are clearly labelled and the information under each heading is very clearly presented and referenced as required. Logical and sequential arrangement of arguments and discussions within the body of the paper. Conclusion provides a very clear summary of the presentation. No new information is provided.4to >3.0ptsGood = DHeadings are clearly labelled, and the information under each heading is clearly presented and referenced as required. Very good flow of ideas within the body of the paper. Mostly logical and sequential arrangement of arguments and discussions. Conclusion provides a clear summary of the presentation. No new information is provided.3ptsFair = CHeadings are not labelled consistently and/or are unclear. The information provided is nconsistent with the topic heading. Inconsistent referencing or missing referencing. Incoherent structure. Ideas do not flow in a logical or sequential manner. Poor planning of the paper. Transitions are required between ideas. Conclusion is not provided.3to >2.0ptsPoor = PHeadings are poorly provided and are inconsistent with the topic heading. Inconsistent referencing. Lack of clarity with ideas and inconsistent structure with the arrangement of arguments and discussions within the body of the paper. Conclusion provides a poor summary of the presentation. No new information is provided.2to >0ptsFail=NHeadings are not labelled consistently and/or are unclear. The information provided is nconsistent with the topic heading. Inconsistent referencing or missing referencing. Incoherent structure. Ideas do not flow in a logical or sequential manner. Poor planning of the paper. Transitions are required between ideas. Conclusion is not provided.
5pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSource and Referencing
5to >3.0ptsExcellent = HDCredible and relevant references are used. Accurate use of APA referencing style in all instances. A range of in-text citations has been used.3to >2.0ptsGood = DCredible and relevant references are used. Accurate use of APA referencing style on most occasions. A range of in-text citations has been used.2to >1.0ptsFair = CCredible and relevant references are used. Accurate use of APA referencing style on most occasions. There is limited use of a range of it1ptsFail=NNot all references are credible and/or relevant. Many inaccuracies with the APA referencing style1to >0ptsPoor = PCredible and relevant references are used. Accurate use of APA referencing style on most occasions. There is no variation of in-text citation format.
5pts
Total Points:50
Answered 41 days After Apr 06, 2021

Solution

Sayani answered on Apr 09 2021
163 Votes
CRITICAL APPRAISAL                                    1
CRITICAL APPRAISAL                                     2
CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF ARTICLES USING CRITICAL APPRAISALS SKILLS PROGRAMME (CASP) TOOL
Table of Contents
Introduction    3
Identifying the Research: Pressure Injury: Prevention and Management    3
Critical Appraisal of the Papers Related to Pressure Injury Using CASP tool    4
Source 1    4
Source 2    5
Source 3    6
Source 4    7
Source 5    8
Source 6    9
Source 7    10
Source 8    10
Source 9    11
Source 10    12
Appropriateness of the Methodology to Address the Research Problem    13
Strengths and Weaknesses of All the Sources    13
Conclusion    15
References    16
Introduction
The assignment highlights a critical appraisal of the researches related to Pressure injury, its related theories, philosophies, methodologies, which is followed thereby under the guidance of CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme). This paper will also focus the critical analysis of the research articles, discussion is done in depth and justification of the methodologies as well as the methods is clearly examined.
As stated by Long, French and Brooks (2020), CASP can be defined as the tool, which is highly used for quality appraisal in health-related qualitative evidence synthesis. The thesis statement of this paper is that it highlights the major concept of Pressure injury, its prevention and management as well as the nurse’s and health staff’s role for the betterment in this regard. The steps in CASP are to study the validity of qualitative papers, their methodologies, results and the way, the results helped locally.
The research paper with its articles should be identified clearly at the beginning of this paper, which would end with a summary with a review in order to demonstrate the students well developed understanding of the paper. Through this paper, the students will learn about the various aspects of Pressure injury, its treatment, nurse’s role, impact, strength as well as weaknesses, impact and management.
Identifying the Research: Pressure Injury: Prevention and Management
Pressure injury is a kind of bedsore or pressure ulcers, which are caused by injured skins. Pressure injury takes place when a force is applied on the surface of the injured skin. In order to keep the skin protected from bed sore certain preventions are needed observing the risk factors, the impact, the complications, the nutritional evaluations and the various aetiology are to be kept in mind (Jackson et al., 2017).
The hospital management should thereby follow certain methodologies in order to keep their patients free from pressure injuries in order to gain positive feedback from the patient party. The role of the Nurses in this case is very essential; as they are the one who can guide the patient and provide the best treatment, they needed in this regard (Barakat-Johnson et al., 2019).
Critical Appraisal of the Papers Related to Pressure Injury Using CASP tool
Source 1
Barakat-Johnson M., Lai M., Wand T., White, K. (2019) A qualitative study of the thoughts and experiences of hospital nurses providing pressure injury prevention and management, Collegian 26:95-102 documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:bda897be-f1c2-4f0c-819e-c05e39623ec3
The paper by Barakat-Johnson et al. (2019) can be considered as a valid paper because it has an appropriate aim, which underlines the experiences of the nurse who deal with the prevention and management in the hospital settings. This paper has used qualitative methodology appropriately for this research as the nurses here have a high evidence of pressure injury across the local health district. This paper highlights a critical appraisal of the researches related to Pressure injury, the nurse’s roles, their philosophies, methodologies, which is followed thereby under the guidance of CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme).
It is worthy to continue with this research paper work as it provides a qualitative design aim where the participants were interviewed either individually or in a group making the strategies of the recruitment appropriate to the aim of the research. The data has been collected through several semi-structured interviews comprising of the open-ended questions and demographic by the author in order to allow the in-depth experiences of the nurses.
The relationship between the researchers and the participants has been adequately considered. The study has been approved ethically as each participant’s consent were obtained. In order to analyse the data rigorously the framework includes criticality, authenticity, credibility, and integrity.
The findings were clearly mentioned. In order to improve the findings for the local context the researchers should deal the matter more carefully and provide relevant materials. This research is valuable as it provides every data clearly and specifically. In order to justify the above reason, Tirgari et al. (2018) opined that the nurses should be asked to do inquiry why the pressure injury took place and what measures should be taken accordingly.
Source 2
Jackson, D., Du
ant, L., Bishop, E., Walthall, H., Betteridge, R., Gardner, S., ... & Usher, K. (2017). Pain associated with pressure injury: a qualitative study of community‐based, home‐dwelling individuals. Journal of advanced nursing, 73(12), 3061-3069 opus.cloud.lib.uts.edu.au
itstream/10453/115751/4/OCC-93269_AM.pdf
The paper by Jackson et al. (2017) can be considered as a valid paper because it has an appropriate aim, which studies the deep insight into the severe pain related with the pressure injury. This paper has used the qualitative methodologies appropriately, which includes several surveys, systematic reviews in order to highlight the pain associated with the pressure injury. As the design of the research is based on the concu
ent mixed methodology, it thereby highlights the aim of the paper.
The data has been collected through several qualitative interviews involving the home dwelling adult participants. The relationship between the researcher and the participants are not clearly mentioned. The strategies whether appropriate for this research or not is not a
uptly mentioned. The ethical issues are taken into consideration as the participants described their pain and it maintained a thematic content analysis.
No rigorous framework is mentioned clearly. The findings were clearly mentioned, which states that the pain has a serious impact on the activities, mobility, sleep and daily living of the people. In order to improve the findings in term of local context the researchers should handle the participants more tactfully. This research is valuable as it provides appropriate study aim with relevant findings. In order to justify the stated objectives, as suggested by Strazzieri‐Pulido et al. (2019), the pain for pressure injury should be assessed more professionally and the assessment tool for pressure injury patients should be developed.
Source 3
McCaughan, D., Sheard, L., Cullum, N., Dumville, J., & Chetter, I. (2018). Patients’ perceptions and experiences of living with a surgical wound healing by secondary intention: A qualitative study. International journal of nursing studies, 77, 29-38 eader.elsevier.com
eade
sd/pii/S0020748917302225?token=1BC1AA976EC6F2A2080B1A3254D211B1B5329C2736C7D2A572D89C0EE13DC26CB591D9F86952C4A2772DAAE3FDD9073D&originRegion=eu-west-1&originCreation=20210409063601
The paper by McCaughan et al. (2018) can be considered as a valid paper because it has an appropriate objective with the sole purpose of surgical wound that are
ought together with staples, glues, adhesives or sutures. The paper has used the qualitative methodologies, which is design in a descriptive approach. The recruitment strategies were appropriate as the participants were recruited from acute and community nursing services in their locations.
Data were thematically interpreted within a framework, which includes familiarisation, charting, coding and interpretations of the recognised themes, cross comparisons of the data. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and the relationship between researchers and the participants are clearly mentioned.
Ethical issues were taken into consideration and have approved by government. The data were sufficiently rigorous and the findings were clearly mentioned. It therefore, provides certain valuable research methodologies. In order to justify the stated objectives, as suggested by Tirgari et al. (2018), special...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here