Exam Flashcards
systematic reviews
- Form of filtered evidence (reviews previous studies)
- Integrates research evidence/findings (i.e., primary research)
- Answers a specific (research or clinical) question
- Follows explicit procedures (i.e., has a set of methods) → someone could follow their procedures and methods to reproduce the study
- Determined in advance
- Reproducible
- Verifiable/Transparent
- Offers recommendations
scoping review
- Research question is very broad/general
- Can include quantitative and qualitative literature
- Follow a specific process, that is transparent and reproducible
- Shallow - skim the literature (not deep)
- Authors don’t critically appraise the literature (don’t determine how strong the research is) (sample size, interventions, randomization, validity, etc.)
- Don’t necessarily make recommendations for clinical practice (because they are not appraising the literature)
- “How is complexity theory being used in health research?” –> So many answers to this question
literature review/narrative review/integrative review
- Not reproducible (don’t follow agreed upon methods), methods are not explicit
- Used to make an argument for why a study should be conducted
- Not really to answer a research question
meta analysis
- Form a systematic review (specific form)
- Systematic review that statistically combines the results of multiple studies together
- Very specific question
- All the studies included have to have answer the question in the same way (same methods)
- “Is ___ medication better than ___ medication for ___ disease”
why use systematic reviews
- Born from EBP - make healthcare more effective
- Patients aren’t receiving 100% (not enough) of expected/good care
- Patients may get care that is not needed or care that could be potentially harmful
- Systematic review - methodological approach (ie. way) of finding, critiquing, and synthesizing research that exists on a topic to answer a specific question
systematic reviews
- use rigorous methods to identify, appraise, and synthesize primary studies
- provide best available objective evidence on a topic
- filter evidence through own evidence informed practice lens
- NOT scoping reviews
- purpose is to:
address a specific research question
obtain evidence to inform clinical decisions/practice
synthesize findings of a number of individual studies
systematic reviews: how it works
- Research question is clearly stated (PICO)
- Search strategy is clearly stated (terms, strategy)
- Eligibility criteria (fit with PICO)
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
- Methodology (to reduce bias) (Tools, instruments used, randomization, reliability (size, effect))
- Studies critically appraised
- Tables
- Analysis
- Recommendations
Why is it important to critically appraise the articles in a systematic review?
If you are gonna offer recommendations for clinical practice or future research you must be sure the research is strong
systematic reviews: summary
- Rigorous analysis of a number of studies answering a clinical research question (evidence)
- Appraisal of studies
- Conclusion - recommendations based on strength, quality, and consistency of data in primary studies
Characteristics of Qualitative Research Design
- Consistent with a constructivist or critical paradigm
- Everyone creates their own reality (based on experiences, etc.)
- There is no absolute truth to be measured
- Flexible, elastic, emergent
- Intense researcher involvement
- Subjective
what is qualitative research?
- Inquiry to explain and understand human experiences
- Data: words or textual form
- Conducted in natural settings that people live in every day
- Study human experience (of health)
- Focused on meaning
- Explanatory, descriptive
- Provides context
- Answer questions, how? Or why? (not effect or associated)
- Goal is to enhance understanding
steps in qualitative research
- Review of the literature
Use literature to justify question (why does it matter?)
Asses gaps in the literature
determine/describe phenomenon of interest
Effects study design (data collection, analysis, etc.) - Study design
Lays out the methods used to conduct the study - Sample
- Setting: recruitment and data collection
- Data collection (Interviews)
- Data analysis
- Findings
- Conclusions
Qualitative sampling
- Purposive sampling - Purposefully sample people who have experienced the phenomenon of interest
- Snowball/network sampling
- Maximum variation - sample people with lots of experience in health care system, and little amount of experience in health care system (get a variety of responses)
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria
- Description of how participants were recruited
- Sample size
Small sample size (could be 5-10 people)
Text data cannot be synthesized by a computer, it all has to be synthesized by the researcher, so a few people results in a lot of data
There is no sample size calculation (minimum sample size)
Sample size is estimated based on convention - Data saturation - when your collecting qualitative data you start to hear the same things over and over again → so you don’t need to sample more people if everyone is saying the same thing
- Description of sample
qualitative data collection
- Naturalistic setting - where people experience the phenomenon
- Open-ended questions to elicit narratives
- Interviews recorded and transcribed
- Individual or focus group interviews
- gatekeepers
- field notes
- ethics and consent addressed
- data collection and analysis are concurrent
pros and cons of focus groups
Pros - group conversation, helps to get people talking
Cons - some people can take over the conversation, not so good for difficult topics (people aren’t open to talking about touchy stuff in a group)
gatekeepers
People who inadvertently keep certain participants from joining a study
Ex: you are selecting nurses to talk about working conditions in the emergency department, manager will pick the most positive nurses to do the study (keep the negative ones out)
qualitative data analysis
- immersion - Researcher must immerse themselves in the data (get to know the data) (read the data multiple times)
- constant comparison - As the researcher comes up with new findings, constantly compare to the old findings
- bracketing - Researcher trying to become aware of their assumptions, thoughts, beliefs, biases, experiences related to research. Become conscious of how those things affect the research
- Interpretation of meaning; description of process; description of experience
- Codes, categories, themes - Coming up with different codes for data, categorizing data, look for patterns in the data (themes)
- Researcher interprets meanings - Subjective
qualitative findings
Use participants’ own words (direct quotations) to support themes
Describe phenomenon, process
qualitative discussion
Compare findings with literature
Suggest implications for practice, education, research, policy
Limitations
reflexivity
- process for understanding how a researchers perspective can influence the research
- Acknowledge biases (bracketing)
- Journal
- Researcher affects interviews; interviews affect researcher (going native - how the researcher can become like the participants)
- Be open to findings
rigor in qualitative research
- Researcher–participant interaction (reflexivity)
- Researcher as instrument
- Trustworthiness (e.g., credibility, auditability, fittingness)
- Triangulation - looking at a phenomenon from 3 different ways
credibility
degree of truth in the findings
Auditability
being very clear in how the research was conducted/data was collected (clear in how you arrived at your findings)