Haematological cancer nurses experience the threat of patients
I need help with a qualitative research critque on the article: How haematological cancer nurses experience the threat of patients' mortality.
Doris Leung, Mary Jane Esplen, Elizabeth Peter, Doris Howell, Gary Rodin & Margaret Fitch
1. Does the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the main features of the report?
Introduction: Statement of the Problem
2. Was the problem stated unambiguously, and is it easy to identify? Does the problem have significance for nursing?
3. Was there a good match between the research problem and the paradigm, tradition, and methods?
Introduction: Research Questions
4. Were research questions explicitly stated? If not, was their absence justified?
Introduction: Literature Review
5. Did the report adequately summarize the existing body of knowledge related to the problem or phenomenon of interest?
6. Did the literature review provide a sound basis for conducting the new study?
Introduction: Conceptual Underpinnings
7. Were key concepts adequately defined conceptually? Is the philosophical basis, underlying tradition, conceptual framework, or ideologic orientation made explicit?
Method: Protection of Human Rights
8. Were appropriate procedures used to safeguard the rights of study participants? Was the study subject to external review by an IRB/ethics review board? Was the study designed to minimize risks and maximize benefits to participants?
Method: Research Design and Research Tradition
9. Was the identified research tradition (if any) congruent with the methods used to collect and analyze data? Was an adequate amount of time spent in the field or with study participants? Did the design unfold in the field, and were there an adequate number of contacts with study participants?
Method: Sample and Setting
10. Was the group or population of interest adequately described? Were the setting and sample described in sufficient detail?
11. Was the best possible method of sampling used to enhance information richness and address the needs of the study? Was the sample size adequate?
Method: Data Collection
12. Were the methods of gathering data appropriate? Were data gathered through two or more methods to achieve triangulation?
13. Did the researchers ask appropriate questions or make observations, and were they recorded in an appropriate fashion? Were the data of sufficient depth and richness? Was a sufficient amount of data gathered and was saturation achieved?
14. Were data collection and reporting procedures adequately described and do they appear appropriate? Were data collected in a manner that minimized bias? Were the staff who collected data appropriately trained?
Method: Enhancement of Trustworthiness
15. Did the researchers use effective strategies to enhance the trustworthiness/integrity of the study, and was the description of the strategies adequate? Address: credibility and dependability described by Lincoln and Guba (as cited in Polit and Beck, 2017) and authenticity.
16. Did the researchers document research procedures and decision processes sufficiently that findings are auditable and confirmable? Was there evidence of researcher reflexivity?
17. Was there "thick description" of the context, participants, and findings and was it at a sufficient level to support transferability?
Results: Data Analysis
18. Were the data analysis methods adequately described? Was it compatible with the research tradition and with the nature and type of data gathered? Did the analysis yield an appropriate "product" (i.e. a theory, taxonomy, or thematic pattern)? Did the analytic procedures suggest the possibility of biases?
19. Were the findings effectively summarized, with good use of excerpts and supporting documents? Did the themes adequately capture the meaning of the data? Did the analysis yield an insightful, provocative, authentic, and meaningful picture of the phenomenon under investigation?
Discussion: Interpretation of Findings
Implications, Recommendations, and Theoretical Integration
20. Were major findings interpreted and discussed within the context of prior studies? Were the interpretations consistent with the study's limitations? Did the researchers discuss the implications of the study for clinical practice or further research?
21. Were figures, maps, or models used effectively to summarize conceptualizations?
General Issues: Presentation
22. Was the report well-written, organized, and sufficiently detailed for critical analysis? Was the description of the methods, findings, and interpretations sufficiently rich and vivid?
General Issues: Researcher Credibility
23. Do the researchers' clinical, substantive, or methodologic qualifications and experience enhance confidence in the findings and their interpretations?
Global Issues: Summary Assessment