IntroductionIntroduction please prof read
Qualitative and quantitative research are the two main schools of research, and although they are often used in tandem, the benefits and disadvantages of each are hotly debated. Particularly in the social sciences, the merits of both qualitative and quantitative research are fought over, with intense views held on both sides of the argument. It is generally agreed upon, however, that there are some phases of research where one or the other is clearly more useful than the other. Research on DVT prevention has provided a multitude of qualitative and quantitative studies. Both studies are useful in the advancement of healthcare regarding DVT prevention. In this paper I will review two studies, one qualitative and one quantitative, and compare the data gained from each study and how it can be applied to the concept of DVT prevention.
Contrast Between Quantitative and Qualitative Studies Regarding DVT Prevention
There exists a fundamental distinction between two types of data: qualitative and quantitative. The way we typically define them, we call data ‘quantitative’ if it is in numerical form and ‘qualitative’ if it is not (Batrawi et al., 2017). Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them (Damman et al., 2018). This is evident in the qualitative article I choose by Seaman, Nelson & Noble (2014). In that study, researchers conducted their interviews in the participants house. By using the natural setting of the participant, the subjects felt more comfortable to discuss their feelings on the research topic. The researchers were concerned with understanding data from the participants point of view.
Quantitative research gathers data in a numerical form which can be put into categories, or in rank order, or measured in units of measurement (Stoel, Ballou & Heitger, 2017). This type of data can be used to construct graphs and tables of raw data. The data from the quantitative article I choose by Sousa et al (2001) contrasted with the qualitative approach. In this article, the researchers were more interested in facts regarding their experiment, the use of sirolimus-coated BX Velocity stents. There was no need for reviewing how the participants felt during this experiment. The only data that was relevant was if the stents used produced the desired effect.
Advantages when using a qualitative approach is that the data obtained can provide depth and detail. There are many time restrictions that are placed on research methods. The goal of a time restriction is to create a measurable outcome so that metrics can be in place. Qualitative research focuses less on the metrics of the data that is being collected and more on the subtleties of what can be found in that information (Batrawi et al., 2017). This allows for the data to have an enhanced level of detail to it, which can provide more opportunities to glean insights form it during examination. This was evident in the article by Seaman, Nelson & Noble (2014). The findings of this study add further information to what is already known about VTE in the palliative care setting. It suggests that CAT produces a significant symptomatic and psychological burden. Also, it confirms that, despite several clear downsides to long-term LMWH therapy, patients are willing to persevere with the treatment and will even work to overcome barriers to continue with the injections (Seaman, Nelson & Noble, 2014). Finally, the study highlights the need to further explore the role of NOACs, not only for the treatment of VTE in palliative care, but for all cancer patients. Qualitative research was very useful in this study to show how human emotions and experiences can affect the data recorded.
Advantages of quantitative research allows the researcher to measure and analyze data. The relationship between an independent and dependent variable is studied in detail. In the article by Sousa et al (2001), this is evident in the data recorded. Twenty-six patients had stable angina and 4 patients had unstable angina. All stents were implanted successfully, and all patients were discharged without complications 24 hours after treatment. No patient approached >50% vessel narrowing by QCA or IVUS, and only 3 patients had >15% intimal hyperplasia by IVUS (Sousa et al., 2001). In both the edge segments and in the stented segment, lumen loss detected by IVUS was minimal. All patients completed 4 months of angiographic and 8 months of clinical follow-up. There were no repeat revascularizations, stent thromboses, or major clinical events (cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, or death). Quantitative research allowed the researchers to more objective about their findings. With the data obtained in this study, the researchers were able to test their hypotheses in the experiment by using statistics to measure the data.
Sometimes qualitative research is looked down upon as not being real science. Qualitative research is valued for its relevance but is considered lacking in scientific accuracy. To encourage high scientific quality and relevance in medical research, researchers need to enhance knowledge about qualitative methods, and their scientific guidelines. This is especially relevant when complex and comprehensive phenomena are to be studied. Quantitative research methods can provide results that are reliable due to their high controls and strict adherence to the scientific method (Park & Park, 2016). However, they can be criticized for their lack of in depth description and explanations. Qualitative research, in contrast to quantitative research, are viewed as being low in reliability and are often discredited because they are regarded as less scientific (Park & Park, 2016). In conclusion, although qualitative data seems to lack scientific qualities, researchers must not take these methods at face value and underestimate how scientific qualitative research can be.
In summary, there are a lot of similarities among quantitative and qualitative research methods. Regardless of which method is used, it is still necessary to create an appropriate research question, understand the theory behind what will be observed, create a research design, collect and analyze data, and create a report of the results. However, there are several key differences between quantitative and qualitative research methods. These methods differ in the types of questions that they pose. They also differ in their analytical objectives and the amount of flexibility allowed in the research design. Differences in the data collection instruments that are used, and the type of data that are ultimately produced must be accounted for. Quantitative methods can be viewed as generally inflexible since categories are typically closed-ended or fixed, while qualitative methods are more flexible, with a large amount of spontaneity and adaptation occurring during interaction with other people, especially in the form of open-ended questions. To decide which research approach should be used, several things should be considered, including the problem of interest, the resources available, the skills and training of the researcher, and the audience for the research. Since there are considerable differences in the assumptions that underlie these two research approaches, as well as the collection and analysis of data, these considerations are important elements all researchers must account for.
References
Batrawi, M., Sayed, H. E., Hussein, H., Mawella, S. A., Madbouly, N., & Fawzi, S. (2017). Qualitative versus quantitative study of distress in a sample of young age breast cancer survivors. The Egyptian Journal Of Psychiatry, (3).
Damman, O. C., Vonk, S. I., Van den Haak, M. J., van Hooijdonk, C. M., & Timmermans, D. R. (2018). The effects of infographics and several quantitative versus qualitative formats for cardiovascular disease risk, including heart age, on people’s risk understanding. Patient Education And Counseling, doi:10.1016/j.pec.2018.03.015
Park, J., & Park, M. (2016). Qualitative versus Quantitative Research Methods: Discovery or Justification?. Journal Of Marketing Thought, 3(1), 1-7. doi:10.15577/jmt.2016.03.01.1
Seaman, S., Nelson, A., & Noble, S. (2014). Cancer-associated thrombosis, low-molecular-weight heparin, and the patient experience: a qualitative study. Patient Preference and Adherence, 8, 453-461. http://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S58595
Sousa, J., Costa, M., Abizaid, A., Abizaid, A., Feres, F., Pinto, I., & … Serruys, P. (2001). Lack of neointimal proliferation after implantation of sirolimus-coated stents in human coronary arteries: a quantitative coronary angiography and three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation, 2001(2), 192-195.
Stoel, M. D., Ballou, B., & Heitger, D. L. (2017). The Impact of Quantitative versus Qualitative Risk Reporting on Risk Professionals’ Strategic and Operational Risk Judgments. Accounting Horizons, 31(4), 53-69. doi:10.2308/acch-51777
Critique Template for a Qualitative Study
NURS 5052/NURS 6052
Week 6 Assignment: Application: Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Methods Studies (due by Day 7 of Week 7)
Date: 4/17/19
Your name:Opheli,okebata
Article reference (in APA style): Seaman, S., Nelson, A., & Noble, S. (2014). Cancer-associated thrombosis, low-molecular-weight heparin, and the patient experience: a qualitative study. Patient Preference and Adherence, 8, 453-461. http://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S58595
URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3986276/
What is a critique? Simply stated, a critique is a critical analysis undertaken for some purpose. Nurses critique research for three main reasons: to improve their practice, to broaden their understanding, and to provide a base for the conduct of a study.
When the purpose is to improve practice, nurses must give special consideration to questions such as these:
- Are the research findings appropriate to my practice setting and situation?
- What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any, before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness?
- How might a proposed change in practice trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
To help you synthesize your learning throughout this course and prepare you to utilize research in your practice, you will be critiquing a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods research study of your choice.
If the article is unavailable in a full-text version through the Walden University Library, you must e-mail the article as a PDF or Word attachment to your Instructor.
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH CRITIQUE
1. Research Issue and Purpose
What is the research question or issue of the referenced study? What is its purpose? (Sometimes ONLY the purpose is stated clearly and the question must be inferred from the introductory discussion of the purpose.)
The purpose of this study is to explore the acceptability of long-term low-molecular -weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) in the contexts of living with cancer and quality of life.
2. Researcher Pre-understandings
Does the article include a discussion of the researcher’s pre-understandings? What does the article disclose about the researcher’s professional and personal perspectives on the research problem?
Previous research suggested that LMWH is an acceptable intervention in the treatment of CAT, yet clinical practice and therapeutic opportunities have changed in the decade since the study was conducted. Furthermore, in the previous study there was acknowledged selection bias in participant recruitment. There is increasing clinical use of the novel oral anticoagulants, although their efficacy and safety is yet to be demonstrated within the cancer population. The experience of patients receiving anticoagulation for CAT will inform future practices with respect to quality of life and adherence to anticoagulation therapy.
3. Literature Review
What is the quality of the literature review? Is the literature review current, relevant? Is there evidence that the author critiqued the literature or merely reported it without critique? Is there an integrated summary of the current knowledge base regarding the research problem, or does the literature review contain opinion or anecdotal articles without any synthesis or summary of the whole? (Sometimes the literature review is incorporated into the introductory section without being explicitly identified.)
Literary review showed that clinical guidelines recommend that first-line treatment of CAT requires 3-6 months anticoagulation with weight-adjusted low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). The evidence supporting this is compelling, with met-analysis form four randomized controlled trials identifying a 50% relative risk reduction in recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) without increased bleeding rates. Because 47%-65% of those enrolled had metastatic disease, these recommendations are also considered appropriate in the advanced-cancer setting. The guidelines also recommended that in patients with active cancer who thus have an ongoing risk for recurrent CAT, consideration should be given to indefinite anticoagulation.
4. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Is a theoretical or conceptual framework identified? If so, what is it? Is it a nursing framework or one drawn from another discipline? (Sometimes there is no explicitly identified theoretical or conceptual framework; in addition, many “nursing” research studies draw on a “borrowed” framework, e.g., stress, medical pathology, etc.)
This study used conceptual framework that can be applied to all healthcare providers. By using LMWH in cancer patients, a decrease in CAT can be achieved. There is overwhelming data from a multitude of studies that have confirmed this assumption.
5. Participants
Who were the participants? Is the setting or study group adequately described? Is the setting appropriate for the research question? What type of sampling strategy was used? Was it appropriate? Was the sample size adequate? Did the researcher stipulate that information redundancy was achieved?
A screening of 40 sequential CAT outpatients identified 14 suitable patients. All 14 patients who were approached agreed to participation in the study. Patients were 52-84 years of age (median 66 years). All patients had commenced LMWH at diagnosis of CAT, except for one patient who had received warfarin for 3 months and was then diagnosed with cancer and changed to LMWH. I feel this was an appropriate sample of participants due to the studies goal of showing the benefits of using LMWH in cancer patients with CAT.
6. Protection of Human Research Participants
What steps were taken to protect human research subjects?
Ethical approval had been obtained through the National Health Service of South Wales Research Ethics Committee. As part of the ethical review, it was recommended that specific questions be introduced to explore patient attitudes to alternative anticoagulants such as the NOACs and whether they would prefer these to the LMWH.
7. Research Design
What was the design of the study? If the design was modeled from previous research or pilot studies, please describe.
The researchers used a qualitative study of cancer patients who had been receiving LMWH for at least 3 months for CAT. Audiotaped semi-structured interviews were conducted and transcribed. Thematic analysis was undertaken until theoretical saturation.
8. Data Collection/Generation Methods
What methods were used for data collection/generation? Was triangulation used?
Semi-structured interviews were carried out over a 6-month period from February-July 2013. The researcher was nan experienced palliative care physician, trained in conducting qualitative research. Interviews were conducted at patient’s homes and guided by a prompt list to ensure that the same issues were discussed at each interview. Open-ended questions were used, as well as prompts to probe further into issues that arose as significant or meaningful to the participant. Interviews took approximately 30 minutes each.
9. Credibility
Were the generated data credible? Explain your reasons.
I feel that the data collected in this study was credible. By reaching theoretical saturation, the researchers could conclude their data results could be replicated if used on another group of participants.
10. Data Analysis
What methods were used for data analysis? What evidence was provided that the researcher’s analysis was accurate and replicable?
Researchers in the study analyzed data using thematic content analysis. Initial coding was undertaken independently by the researchers. Theoretical saturation was achieved at eight interviews. However, to optimize the breadth of primary cancer diagnoses and ages of participants, it was agreed that a further six participants should be interviewed. This was done to increase the reliability of findings.
11. Findings
What were the findings?
The findings of the study suggest that LMWH is still an acceptable intervention in this population and that most patients are willing to continue with the treatment beyond 6 months.
12. Discussion of Findings
Was the discussion of findings related to the framework? Were those the expected findings? Were they consistent with previous studies? Were serendipitous (i.e., accidental) findings described?
The findings of this study add further information to what is already known about VTE in the palliative care setting. It suggests that CAT produces a significant symptomatic and psychological burden. Also, it confirms that, despite several clear downsides to long-term LMWH therapy, patients are willing to persevere with the treatment and will even work to overcome barriers to continue with the injections. Finally, the study highlights the need to further explore the role of NOACs, not only for the treatment of VTE in palliative care, but for cancer patients as a whole.
13. Limitations
Did the researcher report limitations of the study? (Limitations are acknowledgments of internal characteristics of the study that may help explain insignificant and other unexpected findings, and more importantly, indicate those groups to whom the findings CANNOT be generalized or applied. It is a fact that all studies must be limited in some way; not all of the issues involved in a problem situation can be studied all at once.)
Limitations of the study were acknowledged by the researchers. The study was undertaken within a single institution through a dedicated CAT clinic. It is possible that results generated through a specialist setting may not represent those from a more generalist environment. Although there was strong consistency between participant responses, the sample size was too small to draw conclusions worthy of changing practice.
14. Implications
Are the conclusions and implications drawn by the author warranted by the study findings? (Sometimes researchers will seem to ignore findings that don’t confirm their expectations as they interpret the meaning of their study findings.)
The implications of conclusions reached in this study showed that it is possible that managing CAT within a specialist environment affords the patient greater access to information and understanding of the rationale for using LMWH. Increased understanding may consequently improve compliance and tolerance of the intervention.
15. Recommendations
Does the author offer legitimate recommendations for further research? Is the description of the study sufficiently clear and complete to allow replication of the study? (Sometimes researchers’ recommendations seem to come from “left field” rather than following obviously from the discussion of findings. If a research problem is truly significant, the results need to be confirmed with additional research; in addition, if a reader wishes to design a study using a different sample or correcting flaws in the original study, a complete description is necessary.)
Although confirmation of the acceptability of LMWH is not a new finding per se, this study offers additional insight into patient experiences and attitudes. This study suggests that patients experiencing distressing symptoms from VTE considered LMWH a “necessary evil” in treating a potentially life-threatening condition. Recommendations for further research is needed to confirm that patients will comply with LMWH therapy as indefinite anticoagulation therapy if required.
16. Research Utilization in Your Practice
How might this research inform your practice? Are the research findings appropriate to your practice setting and situation? What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any, before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness? How might the utilization of this research trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
The findings of this study can be used in my current practice. As a critical care nurse, I regularly have patients with cancer receiving DVT prevention or treatment. The use of LMWH or NOACs in the therapy of these patients is a part of standard practice. Finding the safest and most reliable medication to use in this patient population is a constant struggle. With studies like this one, we can continue to grow out knowledge regarding the use of these medication and provide the best evidence based practice for therapy for patients with CAT.
Critique Template for a Quantitative Study
NURS 5052/NURS 6052
Week 6 Assignment: Application: Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Methods Studies (due by Day 7 of Week 7)
Date: 4/14/18
Your name: Phillip Comalander
Article reference (in APA style): Sousa, J., Costa, M., Abizaid, A., Abizaid, A., Feres, F., Pinto, I., & … Serruys, P. (2001). Lack of neointimal proliferation after implantation of sirolimus-coated stents in human coronary arteries: a quantitative coronary angiography and three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation, 2001(2), 192-195.
URL: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/103/2/192.full
What is a critique? Simply stated, a critique is a critical analysis undertaken for some purpose. Nurses critique research for three main reasons: to improve their practice, to broaden their understanding, and to provide a base for the conduct of a study.
When the purpose is to improve practice, nurses must give special consideration to questions such as these:
- Are the research findings appropriate to my practice setting and situation?
- What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any, before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness?
- How might a proposed change in practice trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
To help you synthesize your learning throughout this course and prepare you to utilize research in your practice, you will be critiquing a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods research study of your choice.
If the article is unavailable in a full-text version through the Walden University Library, you must e-mail the article as a PDF or Word attachment to your Instructor.
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH CRITIQUE
1. Research Problem and Purpose
What are the problem and purpose of the referenced study? (Sometimes ONLY the purpose is stated clearly and the problem must be inferred from the introductory discussion of the purpose.)
To determine the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-coated BX Veloscity stents
2. Hypotheses and Research Questions
What are the hypotheses (or research questions/objectives) of the study? (Sometimes the hypotheses or study questions are listed in the Results section, rather than preceding the report of the methodology used. Occasionally, there will be no mention of hypotheses, but anytime there are inferential statistics used, the reader can recognize what the hypotheses are from looking at the results of statistical analysis.)
That sirolimus-coated BX Velocity stents can reduce the neointimal proliferation after implantation.
3. Literature Review
What is the quality of the literature review? Is the literature review current? Relevant? Is there evidence that the author critiqued the literature or merely reported it without critique? Is there an integrated summary of the current knowledge base regarding the research problem, or does the literature review contain opinion or anecdotal articles without any synthesis or summary of the whole? (Sometimes the literature review is incorporated into the introductory section without being explicitly identified.)
There was no literature review of the study done for the study. This was the first human experience with the implantation of sirolimus-coated BX Velocity stents was performed. Differences in stent design limit scientific comparison with other reports. The quality of the study would be on the weaker side due to this being the first of its kind. There will need to be additional studies done to have a valid comparison.
4. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Is a theoretical or conceptual framework identified? If so, what is it? Is it a nursing framework or one drawn from another discipline? (Sometimes there is no explicitly identified theoretical or conceptual framework; in addition, many “nursing” research studies draw on a “borrowed” framework, e.g., stress, medical pathology, etc.)
Although not specifically listed, the theoretical framework was designed with physicians and pharmaceutical companies in mind. This study would be of benefit for cardiovascular physicians who perform stenting as a new product to use. Pharmaceutical companies can use this data to adjust current stent design and improve product function.
5. Population
What population was sampled? How was the population sampled? Describe the method and criteria. How many subjects were in the sample?
Thirty patients with angina pectoris were electively treated with 2 different formulations of sirolimus-coated stents.
6. Protection of Human Research Participants
What steps were taken to protect human research subjects?
Researchers made sure that all stents were placed correctly, and patients were discharged without complications.
7. Research Design
What was the design of the study? If the design was modeled from previous research or pilot studies, please describe.
The researchers blended sirolimus in a mixture of nonerodable polymers that have been used clinically in bone cements, ocular devices, and a drug-releasing intrauterine device. Fifteen patients received a fast release formulation, and fifteen received a slow release formulation.
8. Instruments and Strategies for Measurement
What instruments and/or other measurement strategies were used in data collection? Was information provided regarding the reliability and validity of the measurement instruments? If so, describe it.
Quantitative coronary angiography and IVUS imaging were performed immediately after the procedure and at 4-month follow-up in all patients after bolus infusion of intracoronary nitrates. Quantitative angiographic and volumetric IVUS analyses were performed by independent core laboratories.
9. Data Collection
What procedures were used for data collection?
Comparisons between postintervention and follow-up measurements were performed with a 2-tailed paired t test. Comparisons between groups were performed using an unpaired Student’s t test.
10. Data Analysis
What methods of data analysis were used? Were they appropriate to the design and hypotheses?
Quantitative methods were used. This was a valid method for this study in that numerical data was important to prove the hypotheses for the study correct.
11. Interpretation of Results
What results were obtained from data analysis? Is sufficient information given to interpret the results of data analysis?
Twenty-six patients had stable angina and 4 patients had unstable angina. All stents were implanted successfully, and all patients were discharged without complications 24 hours after treatment. No patient approached >50% vessel narrowing by QCA or IVUS, and only 3 patients had >15% intimal hyperplasia by IVUS. In both the edge segments and in the stented segment, lumen loss detected by IVUS was minimal. All patients completed 4 months of angiographic and 8 months of clinical follow-up. There were no repeat revascularizations, stent thromboses, or major clinical events (cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, or death).
12. Discussion of Findings
Was the discussion of findings related to the framework? Were those the expected findings? Were they consistent with previous studies? Were serendipitous (i.e., accidental) findings described?
This was the first human experience with the implantation of sirolimus-coated BX Velocity stents. The absence of adverse events for up to 8 months of follow-up suggests that the implantation of this stent, which is coated with a potent cell-cycle inhibitor, is feasible and safe.
13. Limitations
Did the researcher report limitations of the study? (Limitations are acknowledgments of internal characteristics of the study that may help explain insignificant and other unexpected findings, and more importantly, indicate those groups to whom the findings CANNOT be generalized or applied. It is a fact that all studies must be limited in some way; not all of the issues involved in a problem situation can be studied all at once.)
The study was comprised of only 30 patients with 4 months of QCA and 3D IVUS data and 8 months of clinical data. With such a small sample group, additional studies will be needed.
14. Implications
Are the conclusions and implications drawn by the author warranted by the study findings? (Sometimes researchers will seem to ignore findings that don’t confirm their hypotheses as they interpret the meaning of their study findings.)
The implication for the use of sirolimus-coated BX Velocity stents were confirmed by the results of this study. The data showed very positive results in the use of these stents to prevent neointimal proliferation after stenting.
15. Recommendations
Does the author offer legitimate recommendations for further research? Is the description of the study sufficiently clear and complete to allow replication of the study? (Sometimes researchers’ recommendations seem to come from “left field” rather than following obviously from the discussion of findings. If a research problem is truly significant, the results need to be confirmed with additional research; in addition, if a reader wishes to design a study using a different sample or correcting flaws in the original study, a complete description is necessary.)
The findings of this study show that sirolimus-coated stents can be a safe and effective device for preventing neointimal formation at 4 months after stent implantation. These findings warrant further confirmation by large, placebo-controlled, multicenter trials.
16. Research Utilization in Your Practice
How might this research inform your practice? Are the research findings appropriate to your practice setting and situation? What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any, before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness? How might the utilization of this research trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
As a critical care nurse who takes care of post-stented patients, this information can be useful for physicians at my facility when determining the best stent to use for patients. With proper stent implantation, adverse effects may be minimalized, and patients will recover faster with less of a chance for occlusion of the stent.
Qualitative and quantitative research are the two main schools of research, and although they are often used in tandem, the benefits and disadvantages of each are hotly debated. Particularly in the social sciences, the merits of both qualitative and quantitative research are fought over, with intense views held on both sides of the argument. It is generally agreed upon, however, that there are some phases of research where one or the other is clearly more useful than the other. Research on DVT prevention has provided a multitude of qualitative and quantitative studies. Both studies are useful in the advancement of healthcare regarding DVT prevention. In this paper I will review two studies, one qualitative and one quantitative, and compare the data gained from each study and how it can be applied to the concept of DVT prevention.
Contrast Between Quantitative and Qualitative Studies Regarding DVT Prevention
There exists a fundamental distinction between two types of data: qualitative and quantitative. The way we typically define them, we call data ‘quantitative’ if it is in numerical form and ‘qualitative’ if it is not (Batrawi et al., 2017). Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them (Damman et al., 2018). This is evident in the qualitative article I choose by Seaman, Nelson & Noble (2014). In that study, researchers conducted their interviews in the participants house. By using the natural setting of the participant, the subjects felt more comfortable to discuss their feelings on the research topic. The researchers were concerned with understanding data from the participants point of view.
Quantitative research gathers data in a numerical form which can be put into categories, or in rank order, or measured in units of measurement (Stoel, Ballou & Heitger, 2017). This type of data can be used to construct graphs and tables of raw data. The data from the quantitative article I choose by Sousa et al (2001) contrasted with the qualitative approach. In this article, the researchers were more interested in facts regarding their experiment, the use of sirolimus-coated BX Velocity stents. There was no need for reviewing how the participants felt during this experiment. The only data that was relevant was if the stents used produced the desired effect.
Advantages when using a qualitative approach is that the data obtained can provide depth and detail. There are many time restrictions that are placed on research methods. The goal of a time restriction is to create a measurable outcome so that metrics can be in place. Qualitative research focuses less on the metrics of the data that is being collected and more on the subtleties of what can be found in that information (Batrawi et al., 2017). This allows for the data to have an enhanced level of detail to it, which can provide more opportunities to glean insights form it during examination. This was evident in the article by Seaman, Nelson & Noble (2014). The findings of this study add further information to what is already known about VTE in the palliative care setting. It suggests that CAT produces a significant symptomatic and psychological burden. Also, it confirms that, despite several clear downsides to long-term LMWH therapy, patients are willing to persevere with the treatment and will even work to overcome barriers to continue with the injections (Seaman, Nelson & Noble, 2014). Finally, the study highlights the need to further explore the role of NOACs, not only for the treatment of VTE in palliative care, but for all cancer patients. Qualitative research was very useful in this study to show how human emotions and experiences can affect the data recorded.
Advantages of quantitative research allows the researcher to measure and analyze data. The relationship between an independent and dependent variable is studied in detail. In the article by Sousa et al (2001), this is evident in the data recorded. Twenty-six patients had stable angina and 4 patients had unstable angina. All stents were implanted successfully, and all patients were discharged without complications 24 hours after treatment. No patient approached >50% vessel narrowing by QCA or IVUS, and only 3 patients had >15% intimal hyperplasia by IVUS (Sousa et al., 2001). In both the edge segments and in the stented segment, lumen loss detected by IVUS was minimal. All patients completed 4 months of angiographic and 8 months of clinical follow-up. There were no repeat revascularizations, stent thromboses, or major clinical events (cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, or death). Quantitative research allowed the researchers to more objective about their findings. With the data obtained in this study, the researchers were able to test their hypotheses in the experiment by using statistics to measure the data.
Sometimes qualitative research is looked down upon as not being real science. Qualitative research is valued for its relevance but is considered lacking in scientific accuracy. To encourage high scientific quality and relevance in medical research, researchers need to enhance knowledge about qualitative methods, and their scientific guidelines. This is especially relevant when complex and comprehensive phenomena are to be studied. Quantitative research methods can provide results that are reliable due to their high controls and strict adherence to the scientific method (Park & Park, 2016). However, they can be criticized for their lack of in depth description and explanations. Qualitative research, in contrast to quantitative research, are viewed as being low in reliability and are often discredited because they are regarded as less scientific (Park & Park, 2016). In conclusion, although qualitative data seems to lack scientific qualities, researchers must not take these methods at face value and underestimate how scientific qualitative research can be.
In summary, there are a lot of similarities among quantitative and qualitative research methods. Regardless of which method is used, it is still necessary to create an appropriate research question, understand the theory behind what will be observed, create a research design, collect and analyze data, and create a report of the results. However, there are several key differences between quantitative and qualitative research methods. These methods differ in the types of questions that they pose. They also differ in their analytical objectives and the amount of flexibility allowed in the research design. Differences in the data collection instruments that are used, and the type of data that are ultimately produced must be accounted for. Quantitative methods can be viewed as generally inflexible since categories are typically closed-ended or fixed, while qualitative methods are more flexible, with a large amount of spontaneity and adaptation occurring during interaction with other people, especially in the form of open-ended questions. To decide which research approach should be used, several things should be considered, including the problem of interest, the resources available, the skills and training of the researcher, and the audience for the research. Since there are considerable differences in the assumptions that underlie these two research approaches, as well as the collection and analysis of data, these considerations are important elements all researchers must account for.
References
Batrawi, M., Sayed, H. E., Hussein, H., Mawella, S. A., Madbouly, N., & Fawzi, S. (2017). Qualitative versus quantitative study of distress in a sample of young age breast cancer survivors. The Egyptian Journal Of Psychiatry, (3).
Damman, O. C., Vonk, S. I., Van den Haak, M. J., van Hooijdonk, C. M., & Timmermans, D. R. (2018). The effects of infographics and several quantitative versus qualitative formats for cardiovascular disease risk, including heart age, on people’s risk understanding. Patient Education And Counseling, doi:10.1016/j.pec.2018.03.015
Park, J., & Park, M. (2016). Qualitative versus Quantitative Research Methods: Discovery or Justification?. Journal Of Marketing Thought, 3(1), 1-7. doi:10.15577/jmt.2016.03.01.1
Seaman, S., Nelson, A., & Noble, S. (2014). Cancer-associated thrombosis, low-molecular-weight heparin, and the patient experience: a qualitative study. Patient Preference and Adherence, 8, 453-461. http://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S58595
Sousa, J., Costa, M., Abizaid, A., Abizaid, A., Feres, F., Pinto, I., & … Serruys, P. (2001). Lack of neointimal proliferation after implantation of sirolimus-coated stents in human coronary arteries: a quantitative coronary angiography and three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation, 2001(2), 192-195.
Stoel, M. D., Ballou, B., & Heitger, D. L. (2017). The Impact of Quantitative versus Qualitative Risk Reporting on Risk Professionals’ Strategic and Operational Risk Judgments. Accounting Horizons, 31(4), 53-69. doi:10.2308/acch-51777
Critique Template for a Qualitative Study
NURS 5052/NURS 6052
Week 6 Assignment: Application: Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Methods Studies (due by Day 7 of Week 7)
Date: 4/17/19
Your name:Opheli,okebata
Article reference (in APA style): Seaman, S., Nelson, A., & Noble, S. (2014). Cancer-associated thrombosis, low-molecular-weight heparin, and the patient experience: a qualitative study. Patient Preference and Adherence, 8, 453-461. http://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S58595
URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3986276/
What is a critique? Simply stated, a critique is a critical analysis undertaken for some purpose. Nurses critique research for three main reasons: to improve their practice, to broaden their understanding, and to provide a base for the conduct of a study.
When the purpose is to improve practice, nurses must give special consideration to questions such as these:
- Are the research findings appropriate to my practice setting and situation?
- What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any, before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness?
- How might a proposed change in practice trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
To help you synthesize your learning throughout this course and prepare you to utilize research in your practice, you will be critiquing a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods research study of your choice.
If the article is unavailable in a full-text version through the Walden University Library, you must e-mail the article as a PDF or Word attachment to your Instructor.
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH CRITIQUE
1. Research Issue and Purpose
What is the research question or issue of the referenced study? What is its purpose? (Sometimes ONLY the purpose is stated clearly and the question must be inferred from the introductory discussion of the purpose.)
The purpose of this study is to explore the acceptability of long-term low-molecular -weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) in the contexts of living with cancer and quality of life.
2. Researcher Pre-understandings
Does the article include a discussion of the researcher’s pre-understandings? What does the article disclose about the researcher’s professional and personal perspectives on the research problem?
Previous research suggested that LMWH is an acceptable intervention in the treatment of CAT, yet clinical practice and therapeutic opportunities have changed in the decade since the study was conducted. Furthermore, in the previous study there was acknowledged selection bias in participant recruitment. There is increasing clinical use of the novel oral anticoagulants, although their efficacy and safety is yet to be demonstrated within the cancer population. The experience of patients receiving anticoagulation for CAT will inform future practices with respect to quality of life and adherence to anticoagulation therapy.
3. Literature Review
What is the quality of the literature review? Is the literature review current, relevant? Is there evidence that the author critiqued the literature or merely reported it without critique? Is there an integrated summary of the current knowledge base regarding the research problem, or does the literature review contain opinion or anecdotal articles without any synthesis or summary of the whole? (Sometimes the literature review is incorporated into the introductory section without being explicitly identified.)
Literary review showed that clinical guidelines recommend that first-line treatment of CAT requires 3-6 months anticoagulation with weight-adjusted low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). The evidence supporting this is compelling, with met-analysis form four randomized controlled trials identifying a 50% relative risk reduction in recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) without increased bleeding rates. Because 47%-65% of those enrolled had metastatic disease, these recommendations are also considered appropriate in the advanced-cancer setting. The guidelines also recommended that in patients with active cancer who thus have an ongoing risk for recurrent CAT, consideration should be given to indefinite anticoagulation.
4. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Is a theoretical or conceptual framework identified? If so, what is it? Is it a nursing framework or one drawn from another discipline? (Sometimes there is no explicitly identified theoretical or conceptual framework; in addition, many “nursing” research studies draw on a “borrowed” framework, e.g., stress, medical pathology, etc.)
This study used conceptual framework that can be applied to all healthcare providers. By using LMWH in cancer patients, a decrease in CAT can be achieved. There is overwhelming data from a multitude of studies that have confirmed this assumption.
5. Participants
Who were the participants? Is the setting or study group adequately described? Is the setting appropriate for the research question? What type of sampling strategy was used? Was it appropriate? Was the sample size adequate? Did the researcher stipulate that information redundancy was achieved?
A screening of 40 sequential CAT outpatients identified 14 suitable patients. All 14 patients who were approached agreed to participation in the study. Patients were 52-84 years of age (median 66 years). All patients had commenced LMWH at diagnosis of CAT, except for one patient who had received warfarin for 3 months and was then diagnosed with cancer and changed to LMWH. I feel this was an appropriate sample of participants due to the studies goal of showing the benefits of using LMWH in cancer patients with CAT.
6. Protection of Human Research Participants
What steps were taken to protect human research subjects?
Ethical approval had been obtained through the National Health Service of South Wales Research Ethics Committee. As part of the ethical review, it was recommended that specific questions be introduced to explore patient attitudes to alternative anticoagulants such as the NOACs and whether they would prefer these to the LMWH.
7. Research Design
What was the design of the study? If the design was modeled from previous research or pilot studies, please describe.
The researchers used a qualitative study of cancer patients who had been receiving LMWH for at least 3 months for CAT. Audiotaped semi-structured interviews were conducted and transcribed. Thematic analysis was undertaken until theoretical saturation.
8. Data Collection/Generation Methods
What methods were used for data collection/generation? Was triangulation used?
Semi-structured interviews were carried out over a 6-month period from February-July 2013. The researcher was nan experienced palliative care physician, trained in conducting qualitative research. Interviews were conducted at patient’s homes and guided by a prompt list to ensure that the same issues were discussed at each interview. Open-ended questions were used, as well as prompts to probe further into issues that arose as significant or meaningful to the participant. Interviews took approximately 30 minutes each.
9. Credibility
Were the generated data credible? Explain your reasons.
I feel that the data collected in this study was credible. By reaching theoretical saturation, the researchers could conclude their data results could be replicated if used on another group of participants.
10. Data Analysis
What methods were used for data analysis? What evidence was provided that the researcher’s analysis was accurate and replicable?
Researchers in the study analyzed data using thematic content analysis. Initial coding was undertaken independently by the researchers. Theoretical saturation was achieved at eight interviews. However, to optimize the breadth of primary cancer diagnoses and ages of participants, it was agreed that a further six participants should be interviewed. This was done to increase the reliability of findings.
11. Findings
What were the findings?
The findings of the study suggest that LMWH is still an acceptable intervention in this population and that most patients are willing to continue with the treatment beyond 6 months.
12. Discussion of Findings
Was the discussion of findings related to the framework? Were those the expected findings? Were they consistent with previous studies? Were serendipitous (i.e., accidental) findings described?
The findings of this study add further information to what is already known about VTE in the palliative care setting. It suggests that CAT produces a significant symptomatic and psychological burden. Also, it confirms that, despite several clear downsides to long-term LMWH therapy, patients are willing to persevere with the treatment and will even work to overcome barriers to continue with the injections. Finally, the study highlights the need to further explore the role of NOACs, not only for the treatment of VTE in palliative care, but for cancer patients as a whole.
13. Limitations
Did the researcher report limitations of the study? (Limitations are acknowledgments of internal characteristics of the study that may help explain insignificant and other unexpected findings, and more importantly, indicate those groups to whom the findings CANNOT be generalized or applied. It is a fact that all studies must be limited in some way; not all of the issues involved in a problem situation can be studied all at once.)
Limitations of the study were acknowledged by the researchers. The study was undertaken within a single institution through a dedicated CAT clinic. It is possible that results generated through a specialist setting may not represent those from a more generalist environment. Although there was strong consistency between participant responses, the sample size was too small to draw conclusions worthy of changing practice.
14. Implications
Are the conclusions and implications drawn by the author warranted by the study findings? (Sometimes researchers will seem to ignore findings that don’t confirm their expectations as they interpret the meaning of their study findings.)
The implications of conclusions reached in this study showed that it is possible that managing CAT within a specialist environment affords the patient greater access to information and understanding of the rationale for using LMWH. Increased understanding may consequently improve compliance and tolerance of the intervention.
15. Recommendations
Does the author offer legitimate recommendations for further research? Is the description of the study sufficiently clear and complete to allow replication of the study? (Sometimes researchers’ recommendations seem to come from “left field” rather than following obviously from the discussion of findings. If a research problem is truly significant, the results need to be confirmed with additional research; in addition, if a reader wishes to design a study using a different sample or correcting flaws in the original study, a complete description is necessary.)
Although confirmation of the acceptability of LMWH is not a new finding per se, this study offers additional insight into patient experiences and attitudes. This study suggests that patients experiencing distressing symptoms from VTE considered LMWH a “necessary evil” in treating a potentially life-threatening condition. Recommendations for further research is needed to confirm that patients will comply with LMWH therapy as indefinite anticoagulation therapy if required.
16. Research Utilization in Your Practice
How might this research inform your practice? Are the research findings appropriate to your practice setting and situation? What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any, before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness? How might the utilization of this research trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
The findings of this study can be used in my current practice. As a critical care nurse, I regularly have patients with cancer receiving DVT prevention or treatment. The use of LMWH or NOACs in the therapy of these patients is a part of standard practice. Finding the safest and most reliable medication to use in this patient population is a constant struggle. With studies like this one, we can continue to grow out knowledge regarding the use of these medication and provide the best evidence based practice for therapy for patients with CAT.
Critique Template for a Quantitative Study
NURS 5052/NURS 6052
Week 6 Assignment: Application: Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Methods Studies (due by Day 7 of Week 7)
Date: 4/14/18
Your name: Phillip Comalander
Article reference (in APA style): Sousa, J., Costa, M., Abizaid, A., Abizaid, A., Feres, F., Pinto, I., & … Serruys, P. (2001). Lack of neointimal proliferation after implantation of sirolimus-coated stents in human coronary arteries: a quantitative coronary angiography and three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation, 2001(2), 192-195.
URL: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/103/2/192.full
What is a critique? Simply stated, a critique is a critical analysis undertaken for some purpose. Nurses critique research for three main reasons: to improve their practice, to broaden their understanding, and to provide a base for the conduct of a study.
When the purpose is to improve practice, nurses must give special consideration to questions such as these:
- Are the research findings appropriate to my practice setting and situation?
- What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any, before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness?
- How might a proposed change in practice trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
To help you synthesize your learning throughout this course and prepare you to utilize research in your practice, you will be critiquing a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods research study of your choice.
If the article is unavailable in a full-text version through the Walden University Library, you must e-mail the article as a PDF or Word attachment to your Instructor.
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH CRITIQUE
1. Research Problem and Purpose
What are the problem and purpose of the referenced study? (Sometimes ONLY the purpose is stated clearly and the problem must be inferred from the introductory discussion of the purpose.)
To determine the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-coated BX Veloscity stents
2. Hypotheses and Research Questions
What are the hypotheses (or research questions/objectives) of the study? (Sometimes the hypotheses or study questions are listed in the Results section, rather than preceding the report of the methodology used. Occasionally, there will be no mention of hypotheses, but anytime there are inferential statistics used, the reader can recognize what the hypotheses are from looking at the results of statistical analysis.)
That sirolimus-coated BX Velocity stents can reduce the neointimal proliferation after implantation.
3. Literature Review
What is the quality of the literature review? Is the literature review current? Relevant? Is there evidence that the author critiqued the literature or merely reported it without critique? Is there an integrated summary of the current knowledge base regarding the research problem, or does the literature review contain opinion or anecdotal articles without any synthesis or summary of the whole? (Sometimes the literature review is incorporated into the introductory section without being
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Introductioncraft Elements Refer To The Building Blocks Of Fiction Poetry They I
/in Uncategorized /by developerINTRODUCTION
Craft elements refer to the building blocks of fiction/poetry. They include things like plot, character, point of view, imagery, rhyme, rhythm, meter, etc. Craft elements are the tools that writers use to build works of fiction/poetry, just as other types of artists use paint, clay, wood, metal, concrete, and even digital media to build creations for the sake of art, communication, or business. Creators use the tools of their craft to guide their audiences to focus on what’s most important in their creations. So, as readers of fiction/poetry, it’s worthwhile to ask how authors construct their creative work, and why they make their craft-related choices. And as creators ourselves, it’s crucial to consider how we can/should use the craft tools we have to construct our fiction/poetry.
In a previous modules, we learned about plot, character, setting, rhyme, rhythm, and meter. Now let’s look at how writers use point of view.
WHAT TO DO
FIRST, read the following:
SECOND, post your responses on the following items below:
THIRD, post at least ONE thoughtful response to a classmates’ original post.
FOURTH, Think long and hard about your Point of View options in your own work–how might you use POV? What are the advantages/disadvantages to each option? Which option best suits your fiction/poetry? Apply your learning to your own work!
Note from Michelle: on the surface, the first question might seem tricky, but take a look at the pronouns used most often. That should help! And by the way, resist the urge to just Google ithe answer. Read the stories yourself and figure it out on your own so you can grow your brain. And as before, I’m locking this so you can’t see your classmates’ posts until you’ve posted your own first. That’ll help you to resist self-doubt, too. 🙂
DUE DATES, GRADING
Your original post is due no later than 1/13, 11:00 PM.
Your response to a classmate’s original post is due no later than 1/14, 11:00 PM.
These posts are worth a total of 10 points of your discussion participation grade. Grading criteria are described in the Discussion Participation Guide (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Introductionin Other Academic Courses Or Career Experiences You Ve Probably Had
/in Uncategorized /by developerINTRODUCTION
In other academic courses or career experiences, you’ve probably had to create written or multimedia projects. And you probably already have an established process–whether you realize it or not–for revising a project you’ve begun. Since this course is all about the creative process, though, it’s worthwhile to look at the revision process to reflect on how we can/should work with creative projects that are already underway, like the stories/poems you’re writing now.
WHAT TO DO
FIRST, read the two “Revision…” documents below. Both readings are about revision: what revision is, how it’s different from editing, different strategies for using it in the writing process, and more.
Note from Michelle: the first page of the first doc didn’t scan properly; just do your best when reading it.
SECOND, post a message to this discussion board that addresses the following items:
OPTIONAL: Post responses to your classmates’ messages. Revision is often overlooked and undervalued in the creative process, but it’s actually one of the most important parts of the creative process. The more we can share/discuss thoughts on it, the better off you’ll be in this course and in your academic/career future!
OPTIONAL/VERY STRONGLY ENCOURAGED: The Getting Your Work in Shape (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. document is a very useful exercise in revising and strengthening your writing. I encourage you to use it for your writing in this class and anywhere else.
Note from Michelle: Seriously, this is a great exercise. I use it for my own writing!
THIRD, be your own best educator! Be a true creator! Apply what you’ve learned to your own writing and revision process.
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Introductionintroduction Must Capture A Thesis Statement A Thesis Statement Is O
/in Uncategorized /by developerIntroduction
Introduction must capture a thesis statement. A thesis statement is one sentence that sets out the tasks you will complete in the body of the paper. The statement should have the general format such as “In this paper, I provide an analysis of [specific current event or situation] by: summarizing the facts; stating the key violent crime, and critically considering potential arguments using concepts and theories.
Facts Summary
Provide a brief summary of the facts of a current cybercrime case using neutral/unbiased language. Facts should include specific information about the event, i.e. specific date(s), name(s), location(s), behavior(s), etc. This information should come from an article or news medium (The New York Times or Washington Post, CNN, BBC, Reuters, UN News Wire etc). If you are including facts on the same current event from other sources, you must include the references in the facts section to demonstrate your reliance on objective sources.
Conceptual Framework or Analysis
Provide an analysis of the situation using at least three theories of cybercrime. Framing the analysis using a compare/contrast approach is particularly valuable here. In addition, consider the guidelines below if applicable to your article or case study
Concluding Remarks
Concluding remarks: Which policy action or response to the cybercrime do you think is superior and why? Do you see any limitations?
References & Grammar
References must be presented according to APA format. Resources are available online or at The Writing Center.
Scoring is as follows (out of a possible 15 points):
References you can look up theories from: Digital Crime and Digital Terrorism ISBN: 0133458946
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Introductionintroduction Please Prof Read Qualitative And Quantitative Research
/in Uncategorized /by developerIntroductionIntroduction please prof read
Qualitative and quantitative research are the two main schools of research, and although they are often used in tandem, the benefits and disadvantages of each are hotly debated. Particularly in the social sciences, the merits of both qualitative and quantitative research are fought over, with intense views held on both sides of the argument. It is generally agreed upon, however, that there are some phases of research where one or the other is clearly more useful than the other. Research on DVT prevention has provided a multitude of qualitative and quantitative studies. Both studies are useful in the advancement of healthcare regarding DVT prevention. In this paper I will review two studies, one qualitative and one quantitative, and compare the data gained from each study and how it can be applied to the concept of DVT prevention.
Contrast Between Quantitative and Qualitative Studies Regarding DVT Prevention
There exists a fundamental distinction between two types of data: qualitative and quantitative. The way we typically define them, we call data ‘quantitative’ if it is in numerical form and ‘qualitative’ if it is not (Batrawi et al., 2017). Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them (Damman et al., 2018). This is evident in the qualitative article I choose by Seaman, Nelson & Noble (2014). In that study, researchers conducted their interviews in the participants house. By using the natural setting of the participant, the subjects felt more comfortable to discuss their feelings on the research topic. The researchers were concerned with understanding data from the participants point of view.
Quantitative research gathers data in a numerical form which can be put into categories, or in rank order, or measured in units of measurement (Stoel, Ballou & Heitger, 2017). This type of data can be used to construct graphs and tables of raw data. The data from the quantitative article I choose by Sousa et al (2001) contrasted with the qualitative approach. In this article, the researchers were more interested in facts regarding their experiment, the use of sirolimus-coated BX Velocity stents. There was no need for reviewing how the participants felt during this experiment. The only data that was relevant was if the stents used produced the desired effect.
Advantages when using a qualitative approach is that the data obtained can provide depth and detail. There are many time restrictions that are placed on research methods. The goal of a time restriction is to create a measurable outcome so that metrics can be in place. Qualitative research focuses less on the metrics of the data that is being collected and more on the subtleties of what can be found in that information (Batrawi et al., 2017). This allows for the data to have an enhanced level of detail to it, which can provide more opportunities to glean insights form it during examination. This was evident in the article by Seaman, Nelson & Noble (2014). The findings of this study add further information to what is already known about VTE in the palliative care setting. It suggests that CAT produces a significant symptomatic and psychological burden. Also, it confirms that, despite several clear downsides to long-term LMWH therapy, patients are willing to persevere with the treatment and will even work to overcome barriers to continue with the injections (Seaman, Nelson & Noble, 2014). Finally, the study highlights the need to further explore the role of NOACs, not only for the treatment of VTE in palliative care, but for all cancer patients. Qualitative research was very useful in this study to show how human emotions and experiences can affect the data recorded.
Advantages of quantitative research allows the researcher to measure and analyze data. The relationship between an independent and dependent variable is studied in detail. In the article by Sousa et al (2001), this is evident in the data recorded. Twenty-six patients had stable angina and 4 patients had unstable angina. All stents were implanted successfully, and all patients were discharged without complications 24 hours after treatment. No patient approached >50% vessel narrowing by QCA or IVUS, and only 3 patients had >15% intimal hyperplasia by IVUS (Sousa et al., 2001). In both the edge segments and in the stented segment, lumen loss detected by IVUS was minimal. All patients completed 4 months of angiographic and 8 months of clinical follow-up. There were no repeat revascularizations, stent thromboses, or major clinical events (cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, or death). Quantitative research allowed the researchers to more objective about their findings. With the data obtained in this study, the researchers were able to test their hypotheses in the experiment by using statistics to measure the data.
Sometimes qualitative research is looked down upon as not being real science. Qualitative research is valued for its relevance but is considered lacking in scientific accuracy. To encourage high scientific quality and relevance in medical research, researchers need to enhance knowledge about qualitative methods, and their scientific guidelines. This is especially relevant when complex and comprehensive phenomena are to be studied. Quantitative research methods can provide results that are reliable due to their high controls and strict adherence to the scientific method (Park & Park, 2016). However, they can be criticized for their lack of in depth description and explanations. Qualitative research, in contrast to quantitative research, are viewed as being low in reliability and are often discredited because they are regarded as less scientific (Park & Park, 2016). In conclusion, although qualitative data seems to lack scientific qualities, researchers must not take these methods at face value and underestimate how scientific qualitative research can be.
In summary, there are a lot of similarities among quantitative and qualitative research methods. Regardless of which method is used, it is still necessary to create an appropriate research question, understand the theory behind what will be observed, create a research design, collect and analyze data, and create a report of the results. However, there are several key differences between quantitative and qualitative research methods. These methods differ in the types of questions that they pose. They also differ in their analytical objectives and the amount of flexibility allowed in the research design. Differences in the data collection instruments that are used, and the type of data that are ultimately produced must be accounted for. Quantitative methods can be viewed as generally inflexible since categories are typically closed-ended or fixed, while qualitative methods are more flexible, with a large amount of spontaneity and adaptation occurring during interaction with other people, especially in the form of open-ended questions. To decide which research approach should be used, several things should be considered, including the problem of interest, the resources available, the skills and training of the researcher, and the audience for the research. Since there are considerable differences in the assumptions that underlie these two research approaches, as well as the collection and analysis of data, these considerations are important elements all researchers must account for.
References
Batrawi, M., Sayed, H. E., Hussein, H., Mawella, S. A., Madbouly, N., & Fawzi, S. (2017). Qualitative versus quantitative study of distress in a sample of young age breast cancer survivors. The Egyptian Journal Of Psychiatry, (3).
Damman, O. C., Vonk, S. I., Van den Haak, M. J., van Hooijdonk, C. M., & Timmermans, D. R. (2018). The effects of infographics and several quantitative versus qualitative formats for cardiovascular disease risk, including heart age, on people’s risk understanding. Patient Education And Counseling, doi:10.1016/j.pec.2018.03.015
Park, J., & Park, M. (2016). Qualitative versus Quantitative Research Methods: Discovery or Justification?. Journal Of Marketing Thought, 3(1), 1-7. doi:10.15577/jmt.2016.03.01.1
Seaman, S., Nelson, A., & Noble, S. (2014). Cancer-associated thrombosis, low-molecular-weight heparin, and the patient experience: a qualitative study. Patient Preference and Adherence, 8, 453-461. http://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S58595
Sousa, J., Costa, M., Abizaid, A., Abizaid, A., Feres, F., Pinto, I., & … Serruys, P. (2001). Lack of neointimal proliferation after implantation of sirolimus-coated stents in human coronary arteries: a quantitative coronary angiography and three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation, 2001(2), 192-195.
Stoel, M. D., Ballou, B., & Heitger, D. L. (2017). The Impact of Quantitative versus Qualitative Risk Reporting on Risk Professionals’ Strategic and Operational Risk Judgments. Accounting Horizons, 31(4), 53-69. doi:10.2308/acch-51777
Critique Template for a Qualitative Study
NURS 5052/NURS 6052
Week 6 Assignment: Application: Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Methods Studies (due by Day 7 of Week 7)
Date: 4/17/19
Your name:Opheli,okebata
Article reference (in APA style): Seaman, S., Nelson, A., & Noble, S. (2014). Cancer-associated thrombosis, low-molecular-weight heparin, and the patient experience: a qualitative study. Patient Preference and Adherence, 8, 453-461. http://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S58595
URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3986276/
What is a critique? Simply stated, a critique is a critical analysis undertaken for some purpose. Nurses critique research for three main reasons: to improve their practice, to broaden their understanding, and to provide a base for the conduct of a study.
When the purpose is to improve practice, nurses must give special consideration to questions such as these:
To help you synthesize your learning throughout this course and prepare you to utilize research in your practice, you will be critiquing a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods research study of your choice.
If the article is unavailable in a full-text version through the Walden University Library, you must e-mail the article as a PDF or Word attachment to your Instructor.
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH CRITIQUE
1. Research Issue and Purpose
What is the research question or issue of the referenced study? What is its purpose? (Sometimes ONLY the purpose is stated clearly and the question must be inferred from the introductory discussion of the purpose.)
The purpose of this study is to explore the acceptability of long-term low-molecular -weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) in the contexts of living with cancer and quality of life.
2. Researcher Pre-understandings
Does the article include a discussion of the researcher’s pre-understandings? What does the article disclose about the researcher’s professional and personal perspectives on the research problem?
Previous research suggested that LMWH is an acceptable intervention in the treatment of CAT, yet clinical practice and therapeutic opportunities have changed in the decade since the study was conducted. Furthermore, in the previous study there was acknowledged selection bias in participant recruitment. There is increasing clinical use of the novel oral anticoagulants, although their efficacy and safety is yet to be demonstrated within the cancer population. The experience of patients receiving anticoagulation for CAT will inform future practices with respect to quality of life and adherence to anticoagulation therapy.
3. Literature Review
What is the quality of the literature review? Is the literature review current, relevant? Is there evidence that the author critiqued the literature or merely reported it without critique? Is there an integrated summary of the current knowledge base regarding the research problem, or does the literature review contain opinion or anecdotal articles without any synthesis or summary of the whole? (Sometimes the literature review is incorporated into the introductory section without being explicitly identified.)
Literary review showed that clinical guidelines recommend that first-line treatment of CAT requires 3-6 months anticoagulation with weight-adjusted low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). The evidence supporting this is compelling, with met-analysis form four randomized controlled trials identifying a 50% relative risk reduction in recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) without increased bleeding rates. Because 47%-65% of those enrolled had metastatic disease, these recommendations are also considered appropriate in the advanced-cancer setting. The guidelines also recommended that in patients with active cancer who thus have an ongoing risk for recurrent CAT, consideration should be given to indefinite anticoagulation.
4. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Is a theoretical or conceptual framework identified? If so, what is it? Is it a nursing framework or one drawn from another discipline? (Sometimes there is no explicitly identified theoretical or conceptual framework; in addition, many “nursing” research studies draw on a “borrowed” framework, e.g., stress, medical pathology, etc.)
This study used conceptual framework that can be applied to all healthcare providers. By using LMWH in cancer patients, a decrease in CAT can be achieved. There is overwhelming data from a multitude of studies that have confirmed this assumption.
5. Participants
Who were the participants? Is the setting or study group adequately described? Is the setting appropriate for the research question? What type of sampling strategy was used? Was it appropriate? Was the sample size adequate? Did the researcher stipulate that information redundancy was achieved?
A screening of 40 sequential CAT outpatients identified 14 suitable patients. All 14 patients who were approached agreed to participation in the study. Patients were 52-84 years of age (median 66 years). All patients had commenced LMWH at diagnosis of CAT, except for one patient who had received warfarin for 3 months and was then diagnosed with cancer and changed to LMWH. I feel this was an appropriate sample of participants due to the studies goal of showing the benefits of using LMWH in cancer patients with CAT.
6. Protection of Human Research Participants
What steps were taken to protect human research subjects?
Ethical approval had been obtained through the National Health Service of South Wales Research Ethics Committee. As part of the ethical review, it was recommended that specific questions be introduced to explore patient attitudes to alternative anticoagulants such as the NOACs and whether they would prefer these to the LMWH.
7. Research Design
What was the design of the study? If the design was modeled from previous research or pilot studies, please describe.
The researchers used a qualitative study of cancer patients who had been receiving LMWH for at least 3 months for CAT. Audiotaped semi-structured interviews were conducted and transcribed. Thematic analysis was undertaken until theoretical saturation.
8. Data Collection/Generation Methods
What methods were used for data collection/generation? Was triangulation used?
Semi-structured interviews were carried out over a 6-month period from February-July 2013. The researcher was nan experienced palliative care physician, trained in conducting qualitative research. Interviews were conducted at patient’s homes and guided by a prompt list to ensure that the same issues were discussed at each interview. Open-ended questions were used, as well as prompts to probe further into issues that arose as significant or meaningful to the participant. Interviews took approximately 30 minutes each.
9. Credibility
Were the generated data credible? Explain your reasons.
I feel that the data collected in this study was credible. By reaching theoretical saturation, the researchers could conclude their data results could be replicated if used on another group of participants.
10. Data Analysis
What methods were used for data analysis? What evidence was provided that the researcher’s analysis was accurate and replicable?
Researchers in the study analyzed data using thematic content analysis. Initial coding was undertaken independently by the researchers. Theoretical saturation was achieved at eight interviews. However, to optimize the breadth of primary cancer diagnoses and ages of participants, it was agreed that a further six participants should be interviewed. This was done to increase the reliability of findings.
11. Findings
What were the findings?
The findings of the study suggest that LMWH is still an acceptable intervention in this population and that most patients are willing to continue with the treatment beyond 6 months.
12. Discussion of Findings
Was the discussion of findings related to the framework? Were those the expected findings? Were they consistent with previous studies? Were serendipitous (i.e., accidental) findings described?
The findings of this study add further information to what is already known about VTE in the palliative care setting. It suggests that CAT produces a significant symptomatic and psychological burden. Also, it confirms that, despite several clear downsides to long-term LMWH therapy, patients are willing to persevere with the treatment and will even work to overcome barriers to continue with the injections. Finally, the study highlights the need to further explore the role of NOACs, not only for the treatment of VTE in palliative care, but for cancer patients as a whole.
13. Limitations
Did the researcher report limitations of the study? (Limitations are acknowledgments of internal characteristics of the study that may help explain insignificant and other unexpected findings, and more importantly, indicate those groups to whom the findings CANNOT be generalized or applied. It is a fact that all studies must be limited in some way; not all of the issues involved in a problem situation can be studied all at once.)
Limitations of the study were acknowledged by the researchers. The study was undertaken within a single institution through a dedicated CAT clinic. It is possible that results generated through a specialist setting may not represent those from a more generalist environment. Although there was strong consistency between participant responses, the sample size was too small to draw conclusions worthy of changing practice.
14. Implications
Are the conclusions and implications drawn by the author warranted by the study findings? (Sometimes researchers will seem to ignore findings that don’t confirm their expectations as they interpret the meaning of their study findings.)
The implications of conclusions reached in this study showed that it is possible that managing CAT within a specialist environment affords the patient greater access to information and understanding of the rationale for using LMWH. Increased understanding may consequently improve compliance and tolerance of the intervention.
15. Recommendations
Does the author offer legitimate recommendations for further research? Is the description of the study sufficiently clear and complete to allow replication of the study? (Sometimes researchers’ recommendations seem to come from “left field” rather than following obviously from the discussion of findings. If a research problem is truly significant, the results need to be confirmed with additional research; in addition, if a reader wishes to design a study using a different sample or correcting flaws in the original study, a complete description is necessary.)
Although confirmation of the acceptability of LMWH is not a new finding per se, this study offers additional insight into patient experiences and attitudes. This study suggests that patients experiencing distressing symptoms from VTE considered LMWH a “necessary evil” in treating a potentially life-threatening condition. Recommendations for further research is needed to confirm that patients will comply with LMWH therapy as indefinite anticoagulation therapy if required.
16. Research Utilization in Your Practice
How might this research inform your practice? Are the research findings appropriate to your practice setting and situation? What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any, before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness? How might the utilization of this research trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
The findings of this study can be used in my current practice. As a critical care nurse, I regularly have patients with cancer receiving DVT prevention or treatment. The use of LMWH or NOACs in the therapy of these patients is a part of standard practice. Finding the safest and most reliable medication to use in this patient population is a constant struggle. With studies like this one, we can continue to grow out knowledge regarding the use of these medication and provide the best evidence based practice for therapy for patients with CAT.
Critique Template for a Quantitative Study
NURS 5052/NURS 6052
Week 6 Assignment: Application: Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Methods Studies (due by Day 7 of Week 7)
Date: 4/14/18
Your name: Phillip Comalander
Article reference (in APA style): Sousa, J., Costa, M., Abizaid, A., Abizaid, A., Feres, F., Pinto, I., & … Serruys, P. (2001). Lack of neointimal proliferation after implantation of sirolimus-coated stents in human coronary arteries: a quantitative coronary angiography and three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation, 2001(2), 192-195.
URL: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/103/2/192.full
What is a critique? Simply stated, a critique is a critical analysis undertaken for some purpose. Nurses critique research for three main reasons: to improve their practice, to broaden their understanding, and to provide a base for the conduct of a study.
When the purpose is to improve practice, nurses must give special consideration to questions such as these:
To help you synthesize your learning throughout this course and prepare you to utilize research in your practice, you will be critiquing a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods research study of your choice.
If the article is unavailable in a full-text version through the Walden University Library, you must e-mail the article as a PDF or Word attachment to your Instructor.
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH CRITIQUE
1. Research Problem and Purpose
What are the problem and purpose of the referenced study? (Sometimes ONLY the purpose is stated clearly and the problem must be inferred from the introductory discussion of the purpose.)
To determine the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-coated BX Veloscity stents
2. Hypotheses and Research Questions
What are the hypotheses (or research questions/objectives) of the study? (Sometimes the hypotheses or study questions are listed in the Results section, rather than preceding the report of the methodology used. Occasionally, there will be no mention of hypotheses, but anytime there are inferential statistics used, the reader can recognize what the hypotheses are from looking at the results of statistical analysis.)
That sirolimus-coated BX Velocity stents can reduce the neointimal proliferation after implantation.
3. Literature Review
What is the quality of the literature review? Is the literature review current? Relevant? Is there evidence that the author critiqued the literature or merely reported it without critique? Is there an integrated summary of the current knowledge base regarding the research problem, or does the literature review contain opinion or anecdotal articles without any synthesis or summary of the whole? (Sometimes the literature review is incorporated into the introductory section without being explicitly identified.)
There was no literature review of the study done for the study. This was the first human experience with the implantation of sirolimus-coated BX Velocity stents was performed. Differences in stent design limit scientific comparison with other reports. The quality of the study would be on the weaker side due to this being the first of its kind. There will need to be additional studies done to have a valid comparison.
4. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Is a theoretical or conceptual framework identified? If so, what is it? Is it a nursing framework or one drawn from another discipline? (Sometimes there is no explicitly identified theoretical or conceptual framework; in addition, many “nursing” research studies draw on a “borrowed” framework, e.g., stress, medical pathology, etc.)
Although not specifically listed, the theoretical framework was designed with physicians and pharmaceutical companies in mind. This study would be of benefit for cardiovascular physicians who perform stenting as a new product to use. Pharmaceutical companies can use this data to adjust current stent design and improve product function.
5. Population
What population was sampled? How was the population sampled? Describe the method and criteria. How many subjects were in the sample?
Thirty patients with angina pectoris were electively treated with 2 different formulations of sirolimus-coated stents.
6. Protection of Human Research Participants
What steps were taken to protect human research subjects?
Researchers made sure that all stents were placed correctly, and patients were discharged without complications.
7. Research Design
What was the design of the study? If the design was modeled from previous research or pilot studies, please describe.
The researchers blended sirolimus in a mixture of nonerodable polymers that have been used clinically in bone cements, ocular devices, and a drug-releasing intrauterine device. Fifteen patients received a fast release formulation, and fifteen received a slow release formulation.
8. Instruments and Strategies for Measurement
What instruments and/or other measurement strategies were used in data collection? Was information provided regarding the reliability and validity of the measurement instruments? If so, describe it.
Quantitative coronary angiography and IVUS imaging were performed immediately after the procedure and at 4-month follow-up in all patients after bolus infusion of intracoronary nitrates. Quantitative angiographic and volumetric IVUS analyses were performed by independent core laboratories.
9. Data Collection
What procedures were used for data collection?
Comparisons between postintervention and follow-up measurements were performed with a 2-tailed paired t test. Comparisons between groups were performed using an unpaired Student’s t test.
10. Data Analysis
What methods of data analysis were used? Were they appropriate to the design and hypotheses?
Quantitative methods were used. This was a valid method for this study in that numerical data was important to prove the hypotheses for the study correct.
11. Interpretation of Results
What results were obtained from data analysis? Is sufficient information given to interpret the results of data analysis?
Twenty-six patients had stable angina and 4 patients had unstable angina. All stents were implanted successfully, and all patients were discharged without complications 24 hours after treatment. No patient approached >50% vessel narrowing by QCA or IVUS, and only 3 patients had >15% intimal hyperplasia by IVUS. In both the edge segments and in the stented segment, lumen loss detected by IVUS was minimal. All patients completed 4 months of angiographic and 8 months of clinical follow-up. There were no repeat revascularizations, stent thromboses, or major clinical events (cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, or death).
12. Discussion of Findings
Was the discussion of findings related to the framework? Were those the expected findings? Were they consistent with previous studies? Were serendipitous (i.e., accidental) findings described?
This was the first human experience with the implantation of sirolimus-coated BX Velocity stents. The absence of adverse events for up to 8 months of follow-up suggests that the implantation of this stent, which is coated with a potent cell-cycle inhibitor, is feasible and safe.
13. Limitations
Did the researcher report limitations of the study? (Limitations are acknowledgments of internal characteristics of the study that may help explain insignificant and other unexpected findings, and more importantly, indicate those groups to whom the findings CANNOT be generalized or applied. It is a fact that all studies must be limited in some way; not all of the issues involved in a problem situation can be studied all at once.)
The study was comprised of only 30 patients with 4 months of QCA and 3D IVUS data and 8 months of clinical data. With such a small sample group, additional studies will be needed.
14. Implications
Are the conclusions and implications drawn by the author warranted by the study findings? (Sometimes researchers will seem to ignore findings that don’t confirm their hypotheses as they interpret the meaning of their study findings.)
The implication for the use of sirolimus-coated BX Velocity stents were confirmed by the results of this study. The data showed very positive results in the use of these stents to prevent neointimal proliferation after stenting.
15. Recommendations
Does the author offer legitimate recommendations for further research? Is the description of the study sufficiently clear and complete to allow replication of the study? (Sometimes researchers’ recommendations seem to come from “left field” rather than following obviously from the discussion of findings. If a research problem is truly significant, the results need to be confirmed with additional research; in addition, if a reader wishes to design a study using a different sample or correcting flaws in the original study, a complete description is necessary.)
The findings of this study show that sirolimus-coated stents can be a safe and effective device for preventing neointimal formation at 4 months after stent implantation. These findings warrant further confirmation by large, placebo-controlled, multicenter trials.
16. Research Utilization in Your Practice
How might this research inform your practice? Are the research findings appropriate to your practice setting and situation? What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any, before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness? How might the utilization of this research trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
As a critical care nurse who takes care of post-stented patients, this information can be useful for physicians at my facility when determining the best stent to use for patients. With proper stent implantation, adverse effects may be minimalized, and patients will recover faster with less of a chance for occlusion of the stent.
Qualitative and quantitative research are the two main schools of research, and although they are often used in tandem, the benefits and disadvantages of each are hotly debated. Particularly in the social sciences, the merits of both qualitative and quantitative research are fought over, with intense views held on both sides of the argument. It is generally agreed upon, however, that there are some phases of research where one or the other is clearly more useful than the other. Research on DVT prevention has provided a multitude of qualitative and quantitative studies. Both studies are useful in the advancement of healthcare regarding DVT prevention. In this paper I will review two studies, one qualitative and one quantitative, and compare the data gained from each study and how it can be applied to the concept of DVT prevention.
Contrast Between Quantitative and Qualitative Studies Regarding DVT Prevention
There exists a fundamental distinction between two types of data: qualitative and quantitative. The way we typically define them, we call data ‘quantitative’ if it is in numerical form and ‘qualitative’ if it is not (Batrawi et al., 2017). Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them (Damman et al., 2018). This is evident in the qualitative article I choose by Seaman, Nelson & Noble (2014). In that study, researchers conducted their interviews in the participants house. By using the natural setting of the participant, the subjects felt more comfortable to discuss their feelings on the research topic. The researchers were concerned with understanding data from the participants point of view.
Quantitative research gathers data in a numerical form which can be put into categories, or in rank order, or measured in units of measurement (Stoel, Ballou & Heitger, 2017). This type of data can be used to construct graphs and tables of raw data. The data from the quantitative article I choose by Sousa et al (2001) contrasted with the qualitative approach. In this article, the researchers were more interested in facts regarding their experiment, the use of sirolimus-coated BX Velocity stents. There was no need for reviewing how the participants felt during this experiment. The only data that was relevant was if the stents used produced the desired effect.
Advantages when using a qualitative approach is that the data obtained can provide depth and detail. There are many time restrictions that are placed on research methods. The goal of a time restriction is to create a measurable outcome so that metrics can be in place. Qualitative research focuses less on the metrics of the data that is being collected and more on the subtleties of what can be found in that information (Batrawi et al., 2017). This allows for the data to have an enhanced level of detail to it, which can provide more opportunities to glean insights form it during examination. This was evident in the article by Seaman, Nelson & Noble (2014). The findings of this study add further information to what is already known about VTE in the palliative care setting. It suggests that CAT produces a significant symptomatic and psychological burden. Also, it confirms that, despite several clear downsides to long-term LMWH therapy, patients are willing to persevere with the treatment and will even work to overcome barriers to continue with the injections (Seaman, Nelson & Noble, 2014). Finally, the study highlights the need to further explore the role of NOACs, not only for the treatment of VTE in palliative care, but for all cancer patients. Qualitative research was very useful in this study to show how human emotions and experiences can affect the data recorded.
Advantages of quantitative research allows the researcher to measure and analyze data. The relationship between an independent and dependent variable is studied in detail. In the article by Sousa et al (2001), this is evident in the data recorded. Twenty-six patients had stable angina and 4 patients had unstable angina. All stents were implanted successfully, and all patients were discharged without complications 24 hours after treatment. No patient approached >50% vessel narrowing by QCA or IVUS, and only 3 patients had >15% intimal hyperplasia by IVUS (Sousa et al., 2001). In both the edge segments and in the stented segment, lumen loss detected by IVUS was minimal. All patients completed 4 months of angiographic and 8 months of clinical follow-up. There were no repeat revascularizations, stent thromboses, or major clinical events (cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, or death). Quantitative research allowed the researchers to more objective about their findings. With the data obtained in this study, the researchers were able to test their hypotheses in the experiment by using statistics to measure the data.
Sometimes qualitative research is looked down upon as not being real science. Qualitative research is valued for its relevance but is considered lacking in scientific accuracy. To encourage high scientific quality and relevance in medical research, researchers need to enhance knowledge about qualitative methods, and their scientific guidelines. This is especially relevant when complex and comprehensive phenomena are to be studied. Quantitative research methods can provide results that are reliable due to their high controls and strict adherence to the scientific method (Park & Park, 2016). However, they can be criticized for their lack of in depth description and explanations. Qualitative research, in contrast to quantitative research, are viewed as being low in reliability and are often discredited because they are regarded as less scientific (Park & Park, 2016). In conclusion, although qualitative data seems to lack scientific qualities, researchers must not take these methods at face value and underestimate how scientific qualitative research can be.
In summary, there are a lot of similarities among quantitative and qualitative research methods. Regardless of which method is used, it is still necessary to create an appropriate research question, understand the theory behind what will be observed, create a research design, collect and analyze data, and create a report of the results. However, there are several key differences between quantitative and qualitative research methods. These methods differ in the types of questions that they pose. They also differ in their analytical objectives and the amount of flexibility allowed in the research design. Differences in the data collection instruments that are used, and the type of data that are ultimately produced must be accounted for. Quantitative methods can be viewed as generally inflexible since categories are typically closed-ended or fixed, while qualitative methods are more flexible, with a large amount of spontaneity and adaptation occurring during interaction with other people, especially in the form of open-ended questions. To decide which research approach should be used, several things should be considered, including the problem of interest, the resources available, the skills and training of the researcher, and the audience for the research. Since there are considerable differences in the assumptions that underlie these two research approaches, as well as the collection and analysis of data, these considerations are important elements all researchers must account for.
References
Batrawi, M., Sayed, H. E., Hussein, H., Mawella, S. A., Madbouly, N., & Fawzi, S. (2017). Qualitative versus quantitative study of distress in a sample of young age breast cancer survivors. The Egyptian Journal Of Psychiatry, (3).
Damman, O. C., Vonk, S. I., Van den Haak, M. J., van Hooijdonk, C. M., & Timmermans, D. R. (2018). The effects of infographics and several quantitative versus qualitative formats for cardiovascular disease risk, including heart age, on people’s risk understanding. Patient Education And Counseling, doi:10.1016/j.pec.2018.03.015
Park, J., & Park, M. (2016). Qualitative versus Quantitative Research Methods: Discovery or Justification?. Journal Of Marketing Thought, 3(1), 1-7. doi:10.15577/jmt.2016.03.01.1
Seaman, S., Nelson, A., & Noble, S. (2014). Cancer-associated thrombosis, low-molecular-weight heparin, and the patient experience: a qualitative study. Patient Preference and Adherence, 8, 453-461. http://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S58595
Sousa, J., Costa, M., Abizaid, A., Abizaid, A., Feres, F., Pinto, I., & … Serruys, P. (2001). Lack of neointimal proliferation after implantation of sirolimus-coated stents in human coronary arteries: a quantitative coronary angiography and three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation, 2001(2), 192-195.
Stoel, M. D., Ballou, B., & Heitger, D. L. (2017). The Impact of Quantitative versus Qualitative Risk Reporting on Risk Professionals’ Strategic and Operational Risk Judgments. Accounting Horizons, 31(4), 53-69. doi:10.2308/acch-51777
Critique Template for a Qualitative Study
NURS 5052/NURS 6052
Week 6 Assignment: Application: Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Methods Studies (due by Day 7 of Week 7)
Date: 4/17/19
Your name:Opheli,okebata
Article reference (in APA style): Seaman, S., Nelson, A., & Noble, S. (2014). Cancer-associated thrombosis, low-molecular-weight heparin, and the patient experience: a qualitative study. Patient Preference and Adherence, 8, 453-461. http://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S58595
URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3986276/
What is a critique? Simply stated, a critique is a critical analysis undertaken for some purpose. Nurses critique research for three main reasons: to improve their practice, to broaden their understanding, and to provide a base for the conduct of a study.
When the purpose is to improve practice, nurses must give special consideration to questions such as these:
To help you synthesize your learning throughout this course and prepare you to utilize research in your practice, you will be critiquing a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods research study of your choice.
If the article is unavailable in a full-text version through the Walden University Library, you must e-mail the article as a PDF or Word attachment to your Instructor.
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH CRITIQUE
1. Research Issue and Purpose
What is the research question or issue of the referenced study? What is its purpose? (Sometimes ONLY the purpose is stated clearly and the question must be inferred from the introductory discussion of the purpose.)
The purpose of this study is to explore the acceptability of long-term low-molecular -weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) in the contexts of living with cancer and quality of life.
2. Researcher Pre-understandings
Does the article include a discussion of the researcher’s pre-understandings? What does the article disclose about the researcher’s professional and personal perspectives on the research problem?
Previous research suggested that LMWH is an acceptable intervention in the treatment of CAT, yet clinical practice and therapeutic opportunities have changed in the decade since the study was conducted. Furthermore, in the previous study there was acknowledged selection bias in participant recruitment. There is increasing clinical use of the novel oral anticoagulants, although their efficacy and safety is yet to be demonstrated within the cancer population. The experience of patients receiving anticoagulation for CAT will inform future practices with respect to quality of life and adherence to anticoagulation therapy.
3. Literature Review
What is the quality of the literature review? Is the literature review current, relevant? Is there evidence that the author critiqued the literature or merely reported it without critique? Is there an integrated summary of the current knowledge base regarding the research problem, or does the literature review contain opinion or anecdotal articles without any synthesis or summary of the whole? (Sometimes the literature review is incorporated into the introductory section without being explicitly identified.)
Literary review showed that clinical guidelines recommend that first-line treatment of CAT requires 3-6 months anticoagulation with weight-adjusted low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). The evidence supporting this is compelling, with met-analysis form four randomized controlled trials identifying a 50% relative risk reduction in recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) without increased bleeding rates. Because 47%-65% of those enrolled had metastatic disease, these recommendations are also considered appropriate in the advanced-cancer setting. The guidelines also recommended that in patients with active cancer who thus have an ongoing risk for recurrent CAT, consideration should be given to indefinite anticoagulation.
4. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Is a theoretical or conceptual framework identified? If so, what is it? Is it a nursing framework or one drawn from another discipline? (Sometimes there is no explicitly identified theoretical or conceptual framework; in addition, many “nursing” research studies draw on a “borrowed” framework, e.g., stress, medical pathology, etc.)
This study used conceptual framework that can be applied to all healthcare providers. By using LMWH in cancer patients, a decrease in CAT can be achieved. There is overwhelming data from a multitude of studies that have confirmed this assumption.
5. Participants
Who were the participants? Is the setting or study group adequately described? Is the setting appropriate for the research question? What type of sampling strategy was used? Was it appropriate? Was the sample size adequate? Did the researcher stipulate that information redundancy was achieved?
A screening of 40 sequential CAT outpatients identified 14 suitable patients. All 14 patients who were approached agreed to participation in the study. Patients were 52-84 years of age (median 66 years). All patients had commenced LMWH at diagnosis of CAT, except for one patient who had received warfarin for 3 months and was then diagnosed with cancer and changed to LMWH. I feel this was an appropriate sample of participants due to the studies goal of showing the benefits of using LMWH in cancer patients with CAT.
6. Protection of Human Research Participants
What steps were taken to protect human research subjects?
Ethical approval had been obtained through the National Health Service of South Wales Research Ethics Committee. As part of the ethical review, it was recommended that specific questions be introduced to explore patient attitudes to alternative anticoagulants such as the NOACs and whether they would prefer these to the LMWH.
7. Research Design
What was the design of the study? If the design was modeled from previous research or pilot studies, please describe.
The researchers used a qualitative study of cancer patients who had been receiving LMWH for at least 3 months for CAT. Audiotaped semi-structured interviews were conducted and transcribed. Thematic analysis was undertaken until theoretical saturation.
8. Data Collection/Generation Methods
What methods were used for data collection/generation? Was triangulation used?
Semi-structured interviews were carried out over a 6-month period from February-July 2013. The researcher was nan experienced palliative care physician, trained in conducting qualitative research. Interviews were conducted at patient’s homes and guided by a prompt list to ensure that the same issues were discussed at each interview. Open-ended questions were used, as well as prompts to probe further into issues that arose as significant or meaningful to the participant. Interviews took approximately 30 minutes each.
9. Credibility
Were the generated data credible? Explain your reasons.
I feel that the data collected in this study was credible. By reaching theoretical saturation, the researchers could conclude their data results could be replicated if used on another group of participants.
10. Data Analysis
What methods were used for data analysis? What evidence was provided that the researcher’s analysis was accurate and replicable?
Researchers in the study analyzed data using thematic content analysis. Initial coding was undertaken independently by the researchers. Theoretical saturation was achieved at eight interviews. However, to optimize the breadth of primary cancer diagnoses and ages of participants, it was agreed that a further six participants should be interviewed. This was done to increase the reliability of findings.
11. Findings
What were the findings?
The findings of the study suggest that LMWH is still an acceptable intervention in this population and that most patients are willing to continue with the treatment beyond 6 months.
12. Discussion of Findings
Was the discussion of findings related to the framework? Were those the expected findings? Were they consistent with previous studies? Were serendipitous (i.e., accidental) findings described?
The findings of this study add further information to what is already known about VTE in the palliative care setting. It suggests that CAT produces a significant symptomatic and psychological burden. Also, it confirms that, despite several clear downsides to long-term LMWH therapy, patients are willing to persevere with the treatment and will even work to overcome barriers to continue with the injections. Finally, the study highlights the need to further explore the role of NOACs, not only for the treatment of VTE in palliative care, but for cancer patients as a whole.
13. Limitations
Did the researcher report limitations of the study? (Limitations are acknowledgments of internal characteristics of the study that may help explain insignificant and other unexpected findings, and more importantly, indicate those groups to whom the findings CANNOT be generalized or applied. It is a fact that all studies must be limited in some way; not all of the issues involved in a problem situation can be studied all at once.)
Limitations of the study were acknowledged by the researchers. The study was undertaken within a single institution through a dedicated CAT clinic. It is possible that results generated through a specialist setting may not represent those from a more generalist environment. Although there was strong consistency between participant responses, the sample size was too small to draw conclusions worthy of changing practice.
14. Implications
Are the conclusions and implications drawn by the author warranted by the study findings? (Sometimes researchers will seem to ignore findings that don’t confirm their expectations as they interpret the meaning of their study findings.)
The implications of conclusions reached in this study showed that it is possible that managing CAT within a specialist environment affords the patient greater access to information and understanding of the rationale for using LMWH. Increased understanding may consequently improve compliance and tolerance of the intervention.
15. Recommendations
Does the author offer legitimate recommendations for further research? Is the description of the study sufficiently clear and complete to allow replication of the study? (Sometimes researchers’ recommendations seem to come from “left field” rather than following obviously from the discussion of findings. If a research problem is truly significant, the results need to be confirmed with additional research; in addition, if a reader wishes to design a study using a different sample or correcting flaws in the original study, a complete description is necessary.)
Although confirmation of the acceptability of LMWH is not a new finding per se, this study offers additional insight into patient experiences and attitudes. This study suggests that patients experiencing distressing symptoms from VTE considered LMWH a “necessary evil” in treating a potentially life-threatening condition. Recommendations for further research is needed to confirm that patients will comply with LMWH therapy as indefinite anticoagulation therapy if required.
16. Research Utilization in Your Practice
How might this research inform your practice? Are the research findings appropriate to your practice setting and situation? What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any, before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety and effectiveness? How might the utilization of this research trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
The findings of this study can be used in my current practice. As a critical care nurse, I regularly have patients with cancer receiving DVT prevention or treatment. The use of LMWH or NOACs in the therapy of these patients is a part of standard practice. Finding the safest and most reliable medication to use in this patient population is a constant struggle. With studies like this one, we can continue to grow out knowledge regarding the use of these medication and provide the best evidence based practice for therapy for patients with CAT.
Critique Template for a Quantitative Study
NURS 5052/NURS 6052
Week 6 Assignment: Application: Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Methods Studies (due by Day 7 of Week 7)
Date: 4/14/18
Your name: Phillip Comalander
Article reference (in APA style): Sousa, J., Costa, M., Abizaid, A., Abizaid, A., Feres, F., Pinto, I., & … Serruys, P. (2001). Lack of neointimal proliferation after implantation of sirolimus-coated stents in human coronary arteries: a quantitative coronary angiography and three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation, 2001(2), 192-195.
URL: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/103/2/192.full
What is a critique? Simply stated, a critique is a critical analysis undertaken for some purpose. Nurses critique research for three main reasons: to improve their practice, to broaden their understanding, and to provide a base for the conduct of a study.
When the purpose is to improve practice, nurses must give special consideration to questions such as these:
To help you synthesize your learning throughout this course and prepare you to utilize research in your practice, you will be critiquing a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods research study of your choice.
If the article is unavailable in a full-text version through the Walden University Library, you must e-mail the article as a PDF or Word attachment to your Instructor.
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH CRITIQUE
1. Research Problem and Purpose
What are the problem and purpose of the referenced study? (Sometimes ONLY the purpose is stated clearly and the problem must be inferred from the introductory discussion of the purpose.)
To determine the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-coated BX Veloscity stents
2. Hypotheses and Research Questions
What are the hypotheses (or research questions/objectives) of the study? (Sometimes the hypotheses or study questions are listed in the Results section, rather than preceding the report of the methodology used. Occasionally, there will be no mention of hypotheses, but anytime there are inferential statistics used, the reader can recognize what the hypotheses are from looking at the results of statistical analysis.)
That sirolimus-coated BX Velocity stents can reduce the neointimal proliferation after implantation.
3. Literature Review
What is the quality of the literature review? Is the literature review current? Relevant? Is there evidence that the author critiqued the literature or merely reported it without critique? Is there an integrated summary of the current knowledge base regarding the research problem, or does the literature review contain opinion or anecdotal articles without any synthesis or summary of the whole? (Sometimes the literature review is incorporated into the introductory section without being
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Introductionmany Information Technology It Companies And It Departments Have Dec
/in Uncategorized /by developerINTRODUCTION
Many information technology (IT) companies and IT departments have decided to outsource projects overseas to gain competitive advantages both domestically and globally. For this project, you will be choosing between two vendors bidding for an IT project for a U.S. company.
SCENARIO
You are the senior director of information technology at Endothon Inc. (Endothon), a U.S.-based company located in Atlanta, Georgia. Your company makes aircraft seats and accessories for private and small commercial aircraft. You have five manufacturing plants in the United States. Your company has recently expanded into western Europe due to long-term contracts with Airbus, Dassault, and Bombardier in France and the United Kingdom. This newly acquired business in western Europe required the company to purchase three manufacturing plants in western Europe. Also, you currently have long-term contracts with Boeing, Cessna, and Grumman in the United States.
The CEO and the board of directors at Endothon have indicated they want a new enterprise resource planning (ERP) system for their company, and they would like it to be compatible with their customers’ systems. All of Endothon’s customers have Systems, Applications, & Products in Data Processing (SAP) provide their ERP systems. They want the ERP to be configured and implemented in the next 10 months. Realizing this is an aggressive schedule, they have authorized you to outsource the development of the ERP system to either an inshore or offshore company to contract for the necessary resources to accomplish this project. Your team will be involved in this endeavor so that they will eventually learn the system. However, the initial configuration, implementation, maintenance, and support will have to be serviced by your selected vendor and transitioned to your team two years after initial implementation. As the senior director, you have already determined that the cost to implement this project with a domestic contractor or within the company is prohibitive. To achieve the aggressive timeline and the budget, you must find a lower-cost resource capability offshore. You have issued a request for proposal (RFP) and have gone through a selection process to the point that you now have the final two competing vendors. The budget for this project is $10,000,000.
The SAP ERP system you are going to be implementing will have a number of modules that represent core business processes and areas. You will focus on three major modules within the SAP ERP system:
1. Financial Accounting and Controlling (FICO) Module: This includes procurement and payments for international contracts. It also includes the recording of financial transactions and the assurance of the correct payments for the correct performance. Transfer pricing (monetary exchange rates), tracking, and posting are continually managed by this system.
2. Human Resources Management System (HRMS) Module: All personnel data, including personal information, work history, medical records, training history, salary information, and organizational placement are contained in this system.
3. Sales and Distribution (SD) Module: The eight manufacturing plants are automated and tracked through this module. This includes the proprietary designs and components of the various products. Product design information is transmitted in encrypted form from the headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, to the various plants on a continual basis. This includes customer data, shipping and receiving information, and inventory loads.
As the senior director of information technology at Endothon, you are tasked with selecting a vendor based on these two final proposals and then suggesting modifications to the winning vendor’s proposal to align to the company’s needs.
REQUIREMENTS
Your submission must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of the submission and no more than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from sources, even if cited correctly. An originality report is provided when you submit your task that can be used as a guide.
You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.
A. Summarize Endothon’s outsourcing needs and expectations for the outsourcing vendor, based on the attached “Sourcing Plan Case Study” and “Request for Proposal.”
B. Identify the project sponsor, stakeholders, and steering committee based on information in the Endothon corporate profile, using the attached “Sourcing Plan Case Study.”
C. Summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal from Bullzai Ltd. (Bullzai), noting any gaps in the vendor’s response to requirements specified in the attached “Request for Proposal.”
Note: Use the “Bullzai_Response to Request for Proposal” attached.
D. Summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal from Synesthor Ltd. (Synesthor), noting any gaps in the vendor’s response to requirements specified in the attached “Request for Proposal.”
Note: Use the “Synesthor_Response to Request for Proposal” attached.
E. Identify which vendor you want to award the outsourcing contract to, justifying why that vendor was chosen.
F. Recommend modifications to the chosen vendor’s bid, amending key weaknesses and oversights in the selected vendor’s response to the RFP (i.e., the “Synesthor_Response to Request for Proposal” or the “Bullzai_Response to Request for Proposal” attachment) and justifying how the recommended modifications will benefit your company.
G. Summarize how a problem-solving negotiation strategy could be used to renegotiate the weaknesses and oversights identified in part F.
H. Recommend training to mitigate misunderstandings in cultural communication that may arise between Endothon and the chosen outsourcing vendor.
I. Explain technical and security challenges related to the country where your chosen vendor is located, including IT security, physical security, and the protection of intellectual property.
J. Explain how Encryption and Export Administration Regulations (EAR), Category 5, Parts 1 and 2 apply to communications between your company and your chosen vendor.
K. Acknowledge sources, using APA-formatted in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
L. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Introductionnow That We Have Covered A Wide Range Of Theories And Philosophers Y 1
/in Uncategorized /by developerIntroduction
Now that we have covered a wide range of theories and philosophers, you have a final opportunity to put your knowledge into practice in this class and discuss your values with your classmates. How do you connect what you learned in this course with concrete actions you can take in the world? How might you comfortably analyze a popular video, equipped with the ethical knowledge you have learned in the last eight weeks? This activity aligns with module outcomes 1 and 2.
Discussion Question
Prepare for this discussion by completing your readings and viewings. Then respond to the following:
Evaluation Criteria
Your initial post is due by Thursday at 11:59 PM EST. Your responses to other posts are due by Sunday at 11:59 PM EST.
Initial Discussion Post
Your initial post should be at least 250 words and must substantively integrate the assigned readings from the module with proper APA style formatting. You may use additional sources and materials as long as they are relevant to the discussion and cited properly.
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Introductionphilosophers Christine Korsgaardand Bonnie Steinbockbelieve That Ani
/in Uncategorized /by developerIntroduction
Philosophers Christine Korsgaardand Bonnie Steinbockbelieve that animals do not share the same moral status as humans, though they are deserving of certain rights and considerations. Philosophers Peter Singer and Tom Regan believe that animals share the same moral status as human beings. Ecological feminists believe that no one is truly free, unless all beings are free, including non-human animals. This activity aligns with module outcomes 2 and 4.
Discussion Question
Prepare for your discussion by completing your readings and viewings. Then respond to the following:
Evaluation Criteria
Your initial post is due by Thursday at 11:59 PM EST. Your responses to other posts are due by Sunday at 11:59 PM EST.
Initial Discussion Post
Your initial post should be at least 250 words and must substantively integrate the assigned readings from the module with proper APA style formatting. You may use additional sources and materials as long as they are relevant to the discussion and cited properly.
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Introductionslavery Will Hone Your Abilities To Search And Compile A Response To
/in Uncategorized /by developerIntroduction
Slavery will hone your abilities to search and compile a response to the prompts provided below by describing the dynamics of slavery. Although slavery had existed among African peoples prior to the European slave trade, the status of slaves in Africa was much different than that of slaves as a result of the trade. The condition of the latter took a different path from the start. The transition of this status in the colonies is illustrated through primary sources as seen with several Acts of the Virginia Commonwealth. Research suggests that British North America saw the economic benefit of slavery and adopted “the Peculiar Institution” with slavery at the heart of their success. However, different viewpoints on slavery would soon lead to one of the greatest conflicts on American soil – the American Civil War.
Instructions
Locate the webpage Acts of the Virginia Commonwealth on the PBS site Slavery and the Making of America: The Slave Experience. Use the following keywords in your search: acts of Virginia Commonwealth slave experience. Read the information on this page. Feel free also to locate and incorporate additional scholarly sources to respond to this case study.
Construct the case study by responding to the following prompts:
Make sure to cite and reference sources. Make sure that the writing is clear, well-developed, and free from spelling and grammatical errors. Please note that part of your grade is to include a documented example of the primary source.
Writing Requirements (APA format)
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Introductionso You Tested Your Creative Muscles In The Lateral Thinking Puzzles
/in Uncategorized /by developerINTRODUCTION
So, you tested your creative muscles in the lateral thinking puzzles, and maybe you discovered that those muscles are a little weak. If so, you shouldn’t worry too much about it. This course should help you build those muscles up–you’ll be a regular Creative Hulk (or She-Hulk) in no time. That’s one of the goals of this course.
Did you know that there are scholars who believe such skills are absolutely necessary in American education, business, and industry? It’s true. In fact, many scholars believe that in America, there’s a “creativity crisis” resulting in an inability to be as creative or innovative as we could/should be in areas of education, business, industry, etc. What is the “creativity crisis,” exactly? Where does it come from? What does it mean to America, and to you as an individual?
The activities on this page will encourage you think about these questions and discuss your thoughts on them with your classmates.
WHAT TO DO
FIRST, read “The Creativity Crisis” Newsweek article, published on July 10, 2010. Here’s the article:
The Creativity Crisis.doc
SECOND, watch the youtube video below. This a presentation by Sir Ken Robinson delivered at the TED conference in 2006. The TED conference is a national, annual conference that brings together the best, brightest, most creative minds to share their thoughts, discoveries, innovations, etc. with the world. Robinson is a well-known and respected educational philosopher (did you know there was such a thing as an educational philosopher?).
Robinson speaks quickly with a British accent, so you may need to listen closely, and watch more than once.
Sir Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity? (链接到外部网站。)链接到外部网站。
THIRD, after you’ve read the Newsweek article and listened to Robinson, write a thoughtful response to the questions below, and post your response on The Creativity Crisis discussion thread (click the “Reply” link below and start typing, or click the “Discussion” tab to your left, locate the Creativity Crisis link, and start typing).
FOURTH, read through all of your classmates’ messages, and respond to at least ONE of them by playing devil’s advocate. That means taking an opposing viewpoint on an idea in the original post, and offering a counterpoint or a counterargument to that original idea. You don’t necessarily have to agree with your devil’s advocate stance, just play the part. The goal here is simply to think about the complexities of the creativity crisis by looking at alternate points of view on it. We also want to work hard to move forum discussions beyond “I think ____,” and a response of “I totally agree!” Of course, you’re also encouraged to share any other thoughtful thoughts you have in response to the original post, as well.
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Introductionstate The Topic You Are Attempting To Coverstate The Issues Involved
/in Uncategorized /by developerINTRODUCTION
State the topic you are attempting to cover
State the issues involved
State why we should be concerned with resolving whatever issues are involved
State how answering the issues will help us
State the implications and consequences of dealing with or resolving the issues involved
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE (2 sources minimal, at least 1 needs to be peer-reviewed)
Identify who has tried to answer the question before by doing the following:
Summarize how each of the sources presents and deals with the subject
Explain how each source presents and deals with its findings or results
Explain the relevancy of each source to your topic
State what you learned from each of your sources
State in what way(s) each source contributes to answering your issues
DISCUSSION
State your answer to your issue
State how and elaborate on how, explain how, illustrate how each of the sources you previously reviewed help you answer your issue
State what questions about your topic you still have that your sources may not have answered
CONCLUSIONS
Indicate how each of the sources have contributed to your conclusions (and clearly, accurately, correctly document those sources within your text)
State the implications of your conclusions
State what might be the possible consequences of your conclusions
State the significance these implications and consequences might have in the information technology / information security realm
DOCUMENTATION
On a separate page, include a section labeled References which provides the full publication information for all the sources you used in your paper
You should have a MINIMUM of three (2) sources for your paper, at least 1 source needs to be peer-reviewed
Not meeting this minimum requirement of three (2) sources will lead to a lower evaluation of your paper for each missing source
Use APA format for documenting your sources
-For APA help: Purdue OWL(https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/general_format.html
-For more details on journal types, refer to this link: Rutgers Library(https://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/scholarly_articles
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"