Topic 2 DQ2
Select a qualitative research article, different than the one you used in Topic 1, focusing on a clinical nursing problem of your choice. Use this research article to address the following questions:
Provide an APA reference of the article including working link used to access the article.
Study design: How did you determine that the article is qualitative? What study methodology is used?
Using the “CASP Qualitative Checklist,” found in topic Resources, evaluate the study. Based on your findings, summarize the critical appraisal of the selected research article.
Initial discussion question posts should be a minimum of 200 words and include at least two references cited using APA format.
Topic 2:Ethical Conduct of Scholarly Activities
The focus of this assignment is to apply the principles detailed in the Belmont Report to case studies involving human subjects in research or a quality improvement project:Â
https://journals.lww.com/dccnjournal/fulltext/2016…
Utilize the “Ethical Conduct of Scholarly Activities” document to complete this assignment.
CASP Checklist: 10 questions to help you make sense of a Qualitative research
How to use this appraisal tool: Three broad issues need to be considered when appraising a
qualitative study:
Are the results of the study valid? (Section A)
What are the results?
(Section B)
Will the results help locally?
(Section C)
The 10 questions on the following pages are designed to help you think about these issues
systematically. The first two questions are screening questions and can be answered quickly.
If the answer to both is “yes”, it is worth proceeding with the remaining questions. There is
some degree of overlap between the questions, you are asked to record a “yes”, “no” or
“can’t tell” to most of the questions. A number of italicised prompts are given after each
question. These are designed to remind you why the question is important. Record your
reasons for your answers in the spaces provided.
About: These checklists were designed to be used as educational pedagogic tools, as part of a
workshop setting, therefore we do not suggest a scoring system. The core CASP checklists
(randomised controlled trial & systematic review) were based on JAMA ‘UsersÂ’ guides to the
medical literature 1994 (adapted from Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, and Cook DJ), and piloted with
health care practitioners.
For each new checklist, a group of experts were assembled to develop and pilot the checklist
and the workshop format with which it would be used. Over the years overall adjustments
have been made to the format, but a recent survey of checklist users reiterated that the basic
format continues to be useful and appropriate.
Referencing: we recommend using the Harvard style citation, i.e.: Critical Appraisal Skills
Programme (2018). CASP (insert name of checklist i.e. Qualitative) Checklist. [online] Available
at: URL. Accessed: Date Accessed.
©CASP this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-CommercialShare A like. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncsa/3.0/ www.casp-uk.net
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) part of Oxford Centre for Triple Value Healthcare www.casp-uk.net
Paper for appraisal and reference:
Section A: Are the results valid?
1. Was there a clear
statement of the aims of
the research?
Yes
CanÂ’t Tell
No
HINT: Consider
• what was the goal of the research
• why it was thought important
• its relevance
Comments:
2. Is a qualitative
methodology
appropriate?
Yes
CanÂ’t Tell
No
HINT: Consider
• If the research seeks to interpret or
illuminate the actions and/or subjective
experiences of research participants
• Is qualitative research the right
methodology for addressing the
research goal
Comments:
Is it worth continuing?
3. Was the research
design appropriate to
address the aims of the
research?
Yes
CanÂ’t Tell
No
HINT: Consider
• if the researcher has justified the
research design (e.g. have they
discussed how they decided which
method to use)
Comments:
2
4. Was the recruitment
strategy appropriate to
the aims of the
research?
Yes
CanÂ’t Tell
No
HINT: Consider
• If the researcher has explained how the
participants were selected
• If they explained why the participants
they selected were the most
appropriate to provide access to the
type of knowledge sought by the study
• If there are any discussions around
recruitment (e.g. why some people
chose not to take part)
Comments:
5. Was the data collected in
a way that addressed the
research issue?
Yes
CanÂ’t Tell
No
HINT: Consider
• If the setting for the data collection was
justified
• If it is clear how data were collected (e.g.
focus group, semi-structured interview
etc.)
• If the researcher has justified the methods
chosen
• If the researcher has made the methods
explicit (e.g. for interview method, is there
an indication of how interviews are
conducted, or did they use a topic guide)
• If methods were modified during the
study. If so, has the researcher
explained how and why
• If the form of data is clear (e.g. tape
recordings, video material, notes etc.)
• If the researcher has discussed
saturation of data
Comments:
3
6. Has the relationship
between researcher and
participants been
adequately considered?
Yes
CanÂ’t Tell
No
HINT: Consider
• If the researcher critically
examined their own role,
potential bias and influence
during (a) formulation of the
research questions (b) data
collection, including sample
recruitment and choice of
location
• How the researcher responded to
events during the study and
whether they considered the
implications of any changes in the
research design
Comments:
Section B: What are the results?
7. Have ethical issues been
taken into consideration?
Yes
CanÂ’t Tell
No
HINT: Consider
• If there are sufficient details of how the
research was explained to participants for
the reader to assess whether ethical
standards were maintained
• If the researcher has discussed issues
raised by the study (e.g. issues around
informed consent or confidentiality or how
they have handled the effects of the study
on the participants during and after the
study)
• If approval has been sought from
the ethics committee
Comments:
4
8. Was the data analysis
sufficiently rigorous?
Yes
CanÂ’t Tell
No
HINT: Consider
• If there is an in-depth description of the
analysis process
• If thematic analysis is used. If so, is it clear
how the categories/themes were derived
from the data
• Whether the researcher explains how the
data presented were selected from the
original sample to demonstrate the analysis
process
• If sufficient data are presented to support
the findings
• To what extent contradictory data are
taken into account
• Whether the researcher critically examined
their own role, potential bias and influence
during analysis and selection of data for
presentation
Comments:
9. Is there a clear statement
of findings?
Yes
CanÂ’t Tell
No
HINT: Consider whether
• If the findings are explicit
• If there is adequate discussion of the
evidence both for and against the
researcherÂ’s arguments
• If the researcher has discussed the
credibility of their findings (e.g.
triangulation, respondent validation, more
than one analyst)
• If the findings are discussed in relation to
the original research question
Comments:
5
Section C: Will the results help locally?
10. How valuable is the
research?
HINT: Consider
• If the researcher discusses the
contribution the study makes to existing
knowledge or understanding (e.g. do they
consider the findings in relation to current
practice or policy, or relevant researchbased literature
• If they identify new areas where research
is necessary
• If the researchers have discussed whether
or how the findings can be transferred to
other populations or considered other
ways the research may be used
Comments:
6
NRS-445 Topic 2: Benchmark – Ethical Conduct of Scholarly Activities
For this assignment, students will read the two case studies that follow and then complete the application of the Belmont Principles case study tables for each case study as well as a personal reflection at the end.
Background: The Belmont Report is a foundational document in the field of research ethics. It was created in response to ethical concerns raised by the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and other research studies that exploited vulnerable populations. The Belmont Report outlines three core ethical principles for research involving human subjects: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Institutional review boards (IRBs) are responsible for ensuring that research studies comply with these ethical principles. The Belmont Report has had a significant impact on the formation and function of IRBs. IRBs use the principles outlined in the Belmont Report as a framework for understanding and evaluating the ethical implications of research studies. The principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice are used to guide decision-making around issues such as informed consent, risk-benefit analysis, and the selection of human subjects. Overall, the Belmont Report has played a crucial role in shaping the ethical standards for research involving human subjects.
Assignment Focus: The focus of this assignment is to allow the student to apply the principles detailed in the Belmont Report to case studies involving human subjects in research or a quality improvement project. Emphasis is placed on developing and demonstrating an understanding of the role of the nurse researcher or quality improvement project manager as an effective facilitator of ethical principles in human-subjects research or quality improvement projects.
Resources: Review the “NRS-445 The Belmont Report Lecture” to gain a better understanding of the Belmont Report and the role it plays in conducting research.
© 2023. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
2
Case Study 1: An Experimental Trial Worth Taking?
Life-threatening cancers can end a person’s life within a matter of weeks to months.
Experimental procedures such as a combination of immunotherapy and the novel medication guadecitabine are currently being investigated in a clinical trial. In 8% of cases, the treatment has been highly successful. In one documented case, a woman with breast, colon, and lung cancers with poor odds of survival agreed to partake in receiving the experimental therapy. The experimental therapy compellingly treated the tumors; she has been cancer-free for six years.
Regrettably, the treatment does not affect most people, and significant risk is involved: in some trials, the patients suffered immediate cardiac failure.
Another woman diagnosed with aggressive cancer, who doctors estimate will live for five
months, has inquired about pursuing this therapy. In an extensive informed consent process over a three-week period, she and her spouse are given all the evidence-based background, the risks and benefits, and more. Once the informed consent process is completed, the woman wants to seek the experimental treatment, but her spouse does not support the decision. The woman and her spouse are from a cultural background in which the male partner of the family decides the important choices, and the pair are devoted to their cultural beliefs.
Reflection Points: Should researchers accept this woman into the clinical trial to receive the experimental therapy?
Case 2: Send Me a Message When You Can!
In an African nation, one in seven adults has HIV. Treatment is not accessible to everyone who needs it, and researchers are engrossed in creating effective, economical treatment methods for patients with HIV. The research of new drugs for HIV encounters the issue of the mobility of many African people because many people move from one area to another due to employment, political unrest, or the need to find housing. This issue makes regular contact with research participants challenging. Often, researchers are concerned that their participants will instruct their family members to obtain the experimental drugs they are supposed to have, rather than obtaining the drugs themselves, to split the treatment. This jeopardizes the research and curative value of the medication, which should be taken regularly.
Researchers suggest the use of technology to remedy multiple issues. They will scan the
participants’ fingerprints and include them in an electronic database for proof that each
participant is included in the research study before obtaining treatments. Researchers will also give participants mobile phones to allow the researchers to send text message reminders to participants about their study appointments and to allow rescheduling of visits. GPS tracking will be on the phones to allow researchers to locate participants when necessary, so that they can see the participants in person.
Reflection Points: Should research be conducted as described above explained? Is technology the only way to mitigate the impact of equity issues in research?
3
Application of the Belmont Principles: Case Study 1
Belmont Report principles and the
components of each principle
Explain how the case meets the components of each
principle.
Respect for Person
• Respect the right to choose, hold views,
and act according to personal beliefs.
• Protect those with decreased capacity
to make their own choice.
• Ensure voluntary participation.
• Provide informed consent, explaining
harms and benefits.
Beneficence
• Minimize the harm/risks to the greatest
extent possible.
• Maximize the potential benefits.
• Ensure that the rights and well-being of
the patient take precedence over the
needs of science.
Justice
• Justly distribute the benefits and
burdens of the research. Guard against
using vulnerable populations.
• Ensure a fair selection of research
participants.
• Guard against coercion and undue
influence.
4
Explain how the case does not meet the components of each
principle.
What steps can the nurse researcher or quality improvement manager take to
adhere to the ethical principles
identified in the Belmont
Report?
•
Avoid potential financial or other conflicts of interest.
Application of the Belmont Principles: Case Study 2
Belmont Report principles and the
components of each principle.
Explain how the case meets the components of each
principle.
Respect for Person
• Respect the right to choose, hold views,
and act according to personal beliefs.
• Protect those with decreased capacity
to make their own choice.
• Ensure voluntary participation.
• Provide informed consent, explaining
harms and benefits.
Beneficence
• Minimize the harm/risks to the greatest
extent possible.
• Maximize the potential benefits.
• Ensure that the rights and well-being of
the patient take precedence over the
needs of science.
Justice
5
Explain how the case does not meet the components of each
principle.
What steps can the nurse researcher or quality improvement manager take to
adhere to the ethical principles identified in the Belmont
Report?
•
•
•
•
Justly distribute the benefits and burdens of
the research. Guard against using
vulnerable populations.
Ensure a fair selection of research
participants.
Guard against coercion and undue
influence.
Avoid potential financial or other conflicts
of interest.
Personal Reflection
In less than 250 words, discuss how the ethical principles from the Belmont Report align with the Christian worldview. Reflect on
your current nursing practice and describe how these ethical principles align with your nursing practice.
6
