Research Methods and Evidence-based Practice Sample Paper
Type of Longitudinal Studies
Cohort Studies
Cohort studies involve a group of participants (cohort) who typically experience the problem or issue a researcher is trying to solve at a point in time (Chu & Ke, 2017). In most cases, researchers use cohort studies to investigate the cause of diseases and to establish how the health outcome of various risk factors. They may either be ‘prospective’ where the researcher plans and conduct the in a future period; or retrospective, where the researcher studies already existing data to identify risk factors associated with a condition (Cypress, 2018).
Panel Design Studies
In panel design studies, the researcher samples a panel or group of participants to measure the variables of interest at more than one point in time (Argyres et al, 2020). Typically, according to Abutabenjeh & Jaradat (2018), it involves successive measurement of variables on the same participants to evaluate the stability or longitudinal changes on the variables.
Criteria for the application of study results in EBM practice
The first criterion is asking whether the results are valid. According to Escoffery et al (2019), this criterion evaluates the credibility or believability of the study findings. It entails considering whether the estimated treatment effect is a full representation of the magnitude and direction of the underlying true effect.
The second criterion considers the treatment’s precision and size; typically, ‘what are the results?’ According to Albarqouni et al (2018), the study results offer the best estimate of the treatment effect and therefore a practitioner’s best option is to study the results.
The third criterion looks at how the results can be applied to a practice scenario. Here, the practitioner asks, ‘how can I apply the results to patient care?’ as per Baatiema et al (2017), this criterion entails two parts that form the fourth and fifth criteria. First, the practitioner must identify whether the results are generalizable to the patient case. Secondly, if the study results are generalizable, the practitioner identifies what might be the treatment’s net impact on the patient (Shelton et al, 2018).
Types of Qualitative Research
Phenomenological Studies
As per Cypress (2018), these studies evaluate human experiences using the descriptions offered by the people experiencing the problem under investigation. By studying the lived experiences, phenomenological studies define the impact of those experiences on the subjects.
Ethnographic Studies
Facilitates the understanding of cultural groups by collecting and analysing data from them (Chu & Ke, 2017). It entails having an encounter with an ethnic group of culture and making sense of them, thus understanding how their world makes sense from another world’s point of view.
Grounded Theory
Grounded theory studies those that entail gathering and analysing data, then using that data to develop theory (Cypress, 2018).
Historical Studies
They typically involve the identification, collection, analysis and synthesis of data from the past to understand a phenomenon (Argyres et al, 2020). The data from the past not only helps to discover past events but also to understand how those past events relate to the present and future
Prognostic Studies
A prognostic study is one that evaluates selected predictive risk factors or variables to understand their effects on a disease outcome (Argyres et al, 2020). as per Abutabenjeh & Jaradat (2018), this enables practitioners to have a better understanding of the disease’s natural history. As result, they can make effective clinical decisions and effectively predict disease outcomes. An example is a study by Forzieri et al (2017) who studied how whether-related hazards cause increased health risks for the European population.
Number Needed to Harm (NNM)
In healthcare, NNM is an epidemiological measure of the average number of people exposed to a risk factor over a specific period to cause harm in an average of one person who may not otherwise have been harmed (Argyres et al, 2020). It is calculated as 1 divided by the absolute risk increase.
References
- Abutabenjeh, S., & Jaradat, R. (2018). Clarification of research design, research methods, and research methodology: A guide for public administration researchers and practitioners. Teaching Public Administration, 36(3), 237-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0144739418775787
- Albarqouni, L., Hoffmann, T., Straus, S., Olsen, N. R., Young, T., Ilic, D., … & Glasziou, P. (2018). Core competencies in evidence-based practice for health professionals: consensus statement based on a systematic review and Delphi survey. JAMA network open, 1(2), e180281-e180281. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0281
- Argyres, N. S., De Massis, A., Foss, N. J., Frattini, F., Jones, G., & Silverman, B. S. (2020).
- History‐informed strategy research: The promise of history and historical research methods in advancing strategy scholarship. Strategic Management Journal, 41(3), 343-368. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3118
- Baatiema, L., Otim, M. E., Mnatzaganian, G., Aikins, A. D. G., Coombes, J., & Somerset, S.
- (2017). Health professionals’ views on the barriers and enablers to evidence-based practice for acute stroke care: a systematic review. Implementation Science, 12(1), 1-15. https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13012-017-0599-3
- Chu, H., & Ke, Q. (2017). Research methods: What’s in the name?. Library & Information Science Research, 39(4), 284-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.11.001
- Cypress, B. (2018). Qualitative research methods: A phenomenological focus. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 37(6), 302-309. doi:10.1097/DCC.0000000000000322
- Escoffery, C., Lebow-Skelley, E., Udelson, H., Böing, E. A., Wood, R., Fernandez, M. E., & Mullen, P. D. (2019). A scoping study of frameworks for adapting public health evidence-based interventions. Translational behavioral medicine, 9(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibx067
- Forzieri, G., Cescatti, A., e Silva, F. B., & Feyen, L. (2017). Increasing risk over time of weather-related hazards to the European population: a data-driven prognostic study. The Lancet Planetary Health, 1(5), e200-e208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30082-7
- Shelton, R. C., Cooper, B. R., & Stirman, S. W. (2018). The sustainability of evidence-based interventions and practices in public health and health care. Annual review of public health, 39, 55-76. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014731