Nursing Research: Principles, Process and Issues

£9.9
FREE Shipping

Nursing Research: Principles, Process and Issues

Nursing Research: Principles, Process and Issues

RRP: £99
Price: £9.9
£9.9 FREE Shipping

In stock

We accept the following payment methods

Description

Next, a project goal – that is specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time defined (SMART) – must be constructed. This means that the data, qualitative or quantitative, must be easy to measure and collect and the project should be sufficiently straightforward as to be completed during the primary care placement. The four studies were approved by the ethical review board of each research hospital. According to Lee (2018), obtaining a clinical research ethics approval before beginning the procedure provides the assurance that the research has the potential to contribute to clinical knowledge and that the welfare and rights of the patients are protected. However, in the RCT conducted by Kalowes, Messina and Li (2016) ethical consideration of consent was exempted by the committee for this type of research, as the selected participants were all critically ill patients. Alternatively, a letter was provided to the next-of-kin of the participants informing them that their relative had been enrolled in this study, stating the aim and giving them the option to withdraw from the study at any time. However, this impacts the credibility of the study as the researchers did not gain the next-of-kin’s approval before enrolling them into the study thereby bridging their ethical right to consent voluntarily (Lee, 2018). Evaluation of the studies suggested that they adopted appropriate research governance when conducting their individual researches. In-line with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki (2014), the authors ensured that their studies were approved by their individual human research ethics committee. Additionally, to protect the participant’s rights and welfare, the ethical standard was upheld by the researchers as each participant was informed of the aim of the study, and both oral and written consent was also obtained from them. This was to enable the participants to make a voluntary decision either to accept or decline to participate in research (Peter, 2015). Also, confidentiality was ensured as there was a de-identification of the participants during data entry into the electronic secured database, and this is in line with the ethical principles in conducting research (Parahoo, 2014; Novak, 2014). Effective use of the research ethics is part of promoting patient’s rights, thereby observing the Helsinki’s Declaration. Beauchamp and Childress (2012) stressed that research ethics of autonomy is upheld when participants can independently decide whether to participate in a research or not. In view of the four studies, they respected the right to patient’s autonomy and ensure their safety during the research process. Carlsson and Gunningberg (2017) study elaborated more on transparency, as it provided the participants with options to voluntarily withdraw from the study at any time without explanation. Researcher is active in the research process (researcher becomes part of the phenomenon being studied as they talk directly to participants and/or observe their behaviors). The next stage is to generate ideas for changes that will result in improvement, using quality improvement tools. It is beneficial to involve other team members in these activities.

Parahoo K. (2014). Nursing research principles, process and issues (3rd ed.). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. [ Google Scholar]

O’Reilly M., Parker N. (2013). Unsatisfactory saturation: A critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 13, 190–197. [ Google Scholar] Introducing a short summary in care plans to improve their usefulness for nursing home staff, to minimise unnecessary hospital admissions

Savela, T. (2018) ‘The advantages and disadvantages of quantitative methods in schoolscape research’, Linguistics and Education, 44(1), pp.31-44.

The research process contains multiple components, the first is devising a research question; identifying what is to be researched and formulating a focused question (Parahoo, 2014). The question forms the foundation of the research and offers the idea which will be examined (Lo-Biondo Wood and Haber, 2017). For example: Trainees must consider who else – for example, other doctors, administrative staff, nurses, and patients – must be involved in the QIP. This should include everyone who will execute, and be affected by, the changes.A plan for communicating with the rest of the team, including raising awareness of the need for change and managing resistance, should be developed. Coughlan, M., Cronin, P. and Ryan, F. (2013). Doing a Literature Review in Health and Social Care. London: Sage.

Another way to assess the generalisability of research is to calculate confidence intervals (CI) (Aveyard, 2019). CI are a range of values based on the sample population, which estimates the precision of the findings applied to the wider population (Lo-Biondo Wood and Haber, 2017). A larger sample size will effectively create a more precise CI, 95% or above is the threshold; supporting the generalisation of the findings to the target population (Jirojwong et al., 2014). The researchers did not account for CI.Fetterman D. M. (1998). Ethnography: Step by step (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar] At the end of the QIP, trainees should present their findings to the team at a practice meeting. This may include an evaluation of why a change has not resulted in improvement. They should also attempt to make effective changes permanent. Additionally, trainees are required to reflect on their learning and identify points for improvement. Trace, S. and Kolstoe, S. (2017) ‘Measuring inconsistency in research ethics committee review’, BMC Medical Ethics, 18(1), pp.229-232.

The research does not mention response rate within the paper, only the total completed. This makes it difficult to make assumptions that the findings represent the target population. Charalambous, C., Koulouri, A., Roupa, Z., Vasilopoulos, A., Kyriakou, M. and Vasiliou, M. (2019) ‘Knowledge and attitudes of nurses in a major public hospital in Cyprus towards pressure ulcer prevention’, Journal of Tissue Viability, 28(1), pp.40-45. Cislak, A., Formanowicz, M. and Saguy, T. (2018) ‘Bias against research on gender bias’, Scientometrics, 115(1), pp.189-200. Stanley M. (2015). Qualitative description: A very good place to start. In Nayar S., Stanley M. (Eds.), Qualitative research methodologies for occupational science and therapy (pp. 21–36). New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar] Walker J. L. (2012). The use of saturation in qualitative research. Canadian Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 22( 2), 37–46. [ PubMed] [ Google Scholar]

Footnotes

An inductive process (describes a picture of the phenomenon that is being studied, and can add to knowledge and develop a conceptual and/or theoretical framework). Descriptive quantitative research is concerned with an occurrence of a phenomenon of interest, to make generalisations research needs to be valid, reliable and minimal bias (Gray et al., 2017). As previously discussed, the findings cannot be generalised to the wider population due to sample bias. There are no p values or CI mentioned within the paper, again generalisations cannot be made. If research was conducted at multiple Universities, generalisations could be made from wider range data. Nevertheless, the methodology was valid and reliable, and all participants received the questionnaire in the same format adding some internal validity. Assumptions Parse R. R. (2001). Qualitative inquiry: The path of sciencing. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett. [ Google Scholar] Kaiser, B., Thomas, G. and Bowers, B. (2016) ‘A Case Study of Engaging Hard-to-Reach Participants in the Research Process: Community Advisors on Research Design and Strategies (CARDS)’, Research in Nursing & Health, 40(1), pp.70-79.



  • Fruugo ID: 258392218-563234582
  • EAN: 764486781913
  • Sold by: Fruugo

Delivery & Returns

Fruugo

Address: UK
All products: Visit Fruugo Shop