ASSIGNMENT 3 – Critical appraisal of evidence
Students are required to demonstrate their ability to reflect on a health scenario and critically appraise the evidence (primary research paper) provided in relation to a health scenario. Students are required to identify strengths and limitations of a research paper at a beginning level. Finally, students are required to discuss the factors which influence the use of evidence in practice. The critical appraisal of evidence must be supported by a minimum of four (4) references which are valid and varied academic sources (e.g. Greenhalgh et al. 2018; Hoffman et al. 2017).
Critically appraise the research paper provided in LEO and read the corresponding health scenario. The research paper should be accessed as a full text and critically appraised using the questions identified in Part A & B, which are based on Greenhalgh et al. (2018). The research paper being critically appraised should be written as a full reference at the beginning of the essay (and included in the reference list). The paper should be referenced in-text according to APA (i.e. author, year) required for direct quotes only. Writing in an essay format (introduction, body, conclusion, reference list) answer the questions in Part A and Part B. Students should refer to the ACU Study Guide: Skills for Success (2017) – available online - to ensure they follow the university’s essay writing and referencing guidelines. Small/short headings may be used. Do not repeat the questions or scenario.
Consider the strengths and limitations (critically appraise) the research paper using the following questions. Each paragraph should be supported with a high quality, valid, varied academic reference. This reference is supporting your knowledge and understanding of critical appraisal related to the research paper.
1. Discuss the strengths and limitations of the: a. Authors’ expertise, based on their cited qualifications and affiliations; b. Possible conflicts of interest or possible grounds for bias in the paper.
Research Questions, aim or hypothesis
2. Outline the research study’s question/s, aim or hypothesis and present the author’s justification/s as to why their study was needed.
3. Discuss the research design and how the authors justified their choice of design for their stated research question.
4. Discuss the methods the researchers used for: selecting study participants and for collecting and analysing data? What were the strengths and limitations of the methods used?
Results and limitation of the study
5. Discuss whether the results/conclusions of the study answer the research study’s question/s. Describe how the limitations impact the application of the study findings?
Application of research evidence into clinical practice considering the given scenario and clinical question. Adoption of research findings is often restricted due to a range of key enablers and barriers. Reflecting on your scenario describe some of the enablers and barriers to the uptake of your papers research findings.
Length and/or format: Assessment 3 (Part a & b) should not exceed 1200 words +/- 10% (including in-text citations)
Purpose: The written assignment is required to provide the students with an opportunity to demonstrate fundamental skills required for sound appraisal of research. These assessments are designed to engage students with content that will build knowledge which, by the conclusion of this programme, will allow the student to graduate as a health care professional who can locate and critically appraise discipline specific literature.
Learning outcomes assessed: 3, 4, 5
How to submit: Submission is via the Turnitin Dropbox available in LEO HLSC122 (Campus tile).
Return of assignment: Feedback (written, rubric and/or voice comments) will be available in the Turnitin Dropbox in LEO when the final unit grades are released.
Critical appraisal, knowledge, critical thinking, presentation Please include the word count of your assignment on the front page of your assignment or in a header. Please note that in-text citations are included in the word count whilst the reference list is not included in the word count. Words that are more than 10% over the word count will not be considered. Please see further information in the section below titled ‘Word Count’. Page 15 of 25
Writing requires skill and being able to write within a specified word limit is an essential component of professional and academic work. Reading and writing critically are fundamental skills which demonstrate an understanding and an ability to make judgements and solve problems, hence why only 10% of a word count should be direct quotes. That is, if the word count is 1500 words only 150 of those words should be direct quotes. Word counts provide students with an indication of the amount of detail and work required for each assessment item.
ASSESSMENT 3 OVERVIEW – Critical appraisal of evidence
The research topic that was chosen for the research work was presented by Day et al. (2018) and demanded the expert mindset and hands to complete the project work successfully. However, to support the views of the author, he used some abbreviations to justify his statements. These are, Drug Information and Monitoring System, Trans European Drug Information, Paramethoxyamphetamine etc. All of these used abbreviations are highly appropriate for this kind of research work and justifies the views and reviews of the author. Therefore, it is essential to use relative abbreviations that support the views of the author, and in this case, the abbreviations do precisely so.
In this paper, a type of biases can be seen, as this paper is dedicated to the matter of illegal drug usage in the musical concerts. However, as the primary and centre topic is that so the abbreviations, analytical data and other information to justify that. The presence of conflict related to the topic biases is low, as this report is highly topic-centric.
Every research work demands the aim or objective to complete the work, and at the end of the project, the questions have to be justified fully. In this case, these are:
The above-mentioned objectives were taken by the author, and the objectives justified the research work, as all of the objective's dedicated aim is to gather knowledge about the illegal drug usage in the music festival. The research questions or objectives also provide some essential relative information too like the behaviour of the drug users etc., which can act as a crucial part also for the welfare of this report.
In this research paper, the author mainly used descriptive analytical method to get the answer to the questions. However, for the welfare of this project, a survey was done in association with the author and his set of questions. For this specific act, the research work mainly followed the primary data collection method for the collection of the specific data from a group of 10-12 youths (Pearson et al., 2018), who are the chief representative of the total youth in that festival. So as not much brief answers were available so that the analytical method followed the quantitative approach. It is justified that this kind of research work which is mainly and only can take place inside a festival, so these kind processes are needed as much more time is not available in the hand of the respondents.
The research work mainly followed the primary type of data collection method in which the research work mainly took place by a survey, which was held in a music festival and the cooperation with the youths. This kind of data collection method is also justified as this research work demanded the face-to-face interaction to get the acute face expression too along with the answers. As many brief answers were not available regarding the questions so that the quantitative analysis took place (Asmus et al., 2017). This is also justified that in the case of illegal drug usage in a festival or any kind of concert, the answers of the selected question had no option to be briefly answered except some questions. So that the research work followed the quantitative type of data analysis, from which the researchers got the result upon which they drew the conclusion and the result part. For this reason, the use of these two methods in this kind of research work is justified enough.
73.4% of respondents answered that they were in the affection of illicit drugs in the past 12 months and stated that used mostly cannabis and ecstasy. While 86.5% responded that the drug checking could reduce the harms of illicit drugs, but 84.9% also stated that it would be more effective if the checking service is accompanied by harm reduction advice too. However, 68.6% of respondents agreed on the matter that quality control measurements also have the capability to stop this practice or to reduce it. Whereas 54.6% were in the full support to the drug checking activity, however, 32.7% of respondents agreed to support that movement. These results support the objectives of the research work as these determined the proportion and patterns of illicit drug use among young people revealed people’s attitudes towards the drug checking event at the festivals and determined the potential impact of the event of drug checking upon the intended drug use behaviour.
However, these results were not a result without limitations or limiting factor. Many limitations were present, as some groups of the 10-12 youths were participated in the research survey, among the participants of the music festivals. However, this is not possible practically that these some groups of youth can represent the whole youths of the society or the views of whole youths of society. The survey took place in the daylights, and upon the face reading method, many participants were removed from the survey as their face did not look like a drug user, among the respondents, the number of the female respondents were high than the male number, so the result also had a biased. This depicts that the male category is mainly the users of these drugs, and so that biases arrived. These are the main limitations of the research work; if the limitations are solved in the future, then the better result can be obtained.
This kind of results and the analysis of results has a profound impact on the drug users and upon the company too. However, the research approach and the objectives were dedicated to the youths of the society, and this kind of research work depicts that the real and loyal initiatives if taken by an individual along with the government then this kind of practices can be kept under control (Fox et al., 2018). However, from this result, one more thing noticed that in the festivals just like music festivals or any other, the incident of the illicit drug became high in rate and this kind of activity mostly done by the male category.
In this research work, the limitations were mainly acted as a barrier, as the female participants were high in number so that the result becomes biased, less number of the male participant also acted as a barrier as this influence the result a lot. Similarly, the restriction to organise the event in the night also worked as a barrier as the drug users mainly use illicit drugs at night, so this kind of activity also influenced the result a lot. However, self-research work also can be regarded as a barrier. However, along with all these barriers, the result of research work is still valuable and along with some changes in the research procedure if the research will be reorganised in future, then it will be more effective. However, the measurements of the research findings still help a lot.