Qualitative Study-Free-Samples for Students-Myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Identify a Single Piece of Qualitative Research in the form of a Published, peer reviewed article. Answer: Introduction To evaluate the robustness of the findings, critical scrutiny of the published research article is obvious. The paper aims to assess the quality of the qualitative research paper using the criteria outlined in Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research'by Popay et al. (1998). It is the formalized framework for the evaluation of the qualitative study. This framework is useful in allowing the qualitative studies specified in health research to receive optimum recognition. The qualitative study identified for this purpose is based on a theme of obesity, Identifying families reasons for engaging or not engaging with childhood obesity services: A qualitative study by Banks et al. (2014). This paper is concerned with the management of obesity by highlighting the value of engaging children in the health care decision to attend the obesity services. Evaluation According to Popays criteria, the one criterion to good qualitative study is the provision sufficient details such as background, objectives highlighted with succinct statements, clear description of the methodology and discussion of the main findings (Popay et al. 1998). Banks et al. (2014) have provided a concise title to the article that itself give a precise hint about the purpose and methodology of the research. The authors credentials indicating the credibility of the research follow the title. The background of the study is not too extensive. It is able to inform readers about the problem area, which is obesity and its significance. Thus, the relevance of the research is identified in the background of the study as also highlighted by (Holmes 2014). As the background is followed by short literature, it indicates that subject has been thoroughly researched by the author. As per the Popays criteria, a qualitative study must be able to illuminate the subjective meaning and actions and the context of those being researched. Right in the abstract Banks et al. (2014), the researcher articulates the use of the qualitative interviews to examine families reasons for engaging or not engaging with child obesity services. The desired method for research suggested appears justified. The qualitative paper clearly highlights the context of those being researched. Since the study aims to identify the reason for attrition due to lack of adherence to treatment. Thus, it is justified that the researchers consider 15 families who attended a UK-based childhood obesity service with children and 17 families whose children withdrew from the intervention. Thus, this qualitative paper is well set out allowing the readers to well recognise the research design and read effortlessly (Cope 2014). The paper does not demonstrate in details about the verstehen approach adopted to illuminate the meaning people attach to their behaviour that is in adherence to the intervention for obesity (Popay et al. 1998). However, Banks et al. (2014), designed the paper to draw the data from the interviews with families who participated in the Primary Care Care of Childhood Obesity (PC-COCO), Randomised control trial (two armed). This trial assessed the effectiveness of incorporating the established secondary care clinic in the primary care setting. In short, the privilege of the subjective meaning is not evident from the paper (LoBiondo-Wood and Haber 2017). Prior to the methodology section, the author highlights the results of the trial where he found poor attrition rate, but the potentiality of the primary care service was noted. A qualitative study must have the evidence of adoption and responsiveness of the research design to the circumstances. Further, during the course of the study, the issue of social settings in real life should be met. In short, there is a need of variability instead of standardisation, which is the hallmark of good qualitative methodology (Popay et al. 1998). The same is evident in this paper were sampling, data collection, its interpretation and are interdependent. The Popays criteria mention that the qualitative research must have the sample that produces the type of knowledge to understand the environment in which the participants are assessed. In the chosen paper, the author has chosen purposive convenience sampling. All the participants are the most appropriate to the task itself and involve maximum variation. However, the paper does not highlight the reason why some participants did not turn for the interview (Leung 2015). Further, the author has clearly mentioned as to who cond ucted the interview and that it was conducted over the phone for the group of participants that withdrew from treatment. For the group that participated in the intervention were interviewed in their homes with children. The use of the semi-structured interview was justified as the interviewer can look for the technique of verbal communication and how the responses were given (Munn et al. 2014). The element of vagueness is eliminated in the paper by Banks et al. (2014) as he mentioned the duration of the interview and data recording process. Further, prior to discussing on the methodology, the author elucidates the process of trial to rationalise the research. This section thus meets the hallmark criteria of the qualitative study. During this study, thematic mode of data analysis was used (Banks et al. 2014). This coding method recognises main themes, and emphasise on ideas and feelings (Popay et al. 1998). Since more than one author was involved in the interview process, its eliminates the probability of discrepancies and bias. This is also evident from the ethics committee approval and informed consent taken from participants. There is an evidence of adequate description of the individual sections such as introduction, methods, results and discussions as well as on the subsections such as the interview with families, data analysis and presentation (Holloway and Galvin 2016). The Popays criteria emphasise on the evidence of data quality and of theoretical and of conceptual adequacy (Popay et al. 1998). The paper must have a potential for assessing typicality. The paper demonstrates interpretive validity. The researcher Banks et al. (2014) not only described the data but also gave the quotation to interpret the meaning and significance of the response. The researcher did not give a wide comparison of the statements and indexes of the behaviour. In the qualitative paper, the author findings are scientifically credible and can be transferred to others settings as highlighted by Popay et al. (1998). The findings can be used to understand the attrition of the people in the diabetes treatment clinics. The author of the qualitative paper has linked the purposefulness to the representativeness. In addition, the researcher has not missed highlighting the strengths, limitations, practice implications such as incorporating the childs clinical decision-making process (Kallio et al. 2016). The author has also provided suggestions lastly to improve the clinical environment to decrease the attrition rate. The parts of the setting can be treated as typical of a large number of setting. In case the setting, time and place are explicit, it may enhance the typicality of the findings by using other sources such as congruent pieces of research, non-official statistics, and policy documents (Lipp and Fothergill 2015). Conclusion The criterion that was considered a hallmark of the good qualitative health research is met o a great context by the chosen qualitative paper. The paper was thus evaluated using the Popays criteria on various dimensions such as interpretation of the subjective meaning, theoretical basis, sampling process, data collection methods, and concern with generalisability. The findings were important, and the background information was sufficient to make the judgments. Overall, the qualitative paper has clear implications for policy and practice. Thus, Popays criteria well define the quality standards for assessing the qualitative methodology in the health service research. References Banks, J., Cramer, H., Sharp, D.J., Shield, J.P. and Turner, K.M., 2014. Identifying families reasons for engaging or not engaging with childhood obesity services: A qualitative study.Journal of Child Health Care,18(2), pp.101-110. Cope, D.G., 2014, January. Methods and meanings: credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative research. InOncology nursing forum(Vol. 41, No. 1). Holloway, I. and Galvin, K., 2016.Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare. John Wiley Sons. Holmes, J., 2014. Countertransference in qualitative research: a critical appraisal.Qualitative Research,14(2), pp.166-183. Kallio, H., Pietil, A.M., Johnson, M. and Kangasniemi, M., 2016. Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi?structured interview guide.Journal of advanced nursing,72(12), pp.2954-2965. Leung, L., 2015. Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research.Journal of family medicine and primary care,4(3), p.324. Lipp, A. and Fothergill, A., 2015. A guide to critiquing a research paper. Methodological appraisal of a paper on nurses in abortion care.Nurse education today,35(3), pp.e14-e17. LoBiondo-Wood, G. and Haber, J., 2017.Nursing Research-E-Book: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice. Elsevier Health Sciences. Munn, Z., Porritt, K., Lockwood, C., Aromataris, E. and Pearson, A., 2014. Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach.BMC medical research methodology,14(1), p.108. Popay, J., Rogers, A. and Williams, G., 1998. Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research.Qualitative health research,8(3), pp.341-351.