Inpatient fall prevention from the patient’s perspective: a


Title Page  Abstract: What should the reader expect to find in your paper? This should be a brief paragraph of approximately 3-5 sentences.   Body: The body of the research critique should be 2100-2800 words (approx. 6-8 pages).  Reference Page: This should include the article being critiqued and any sources you used to support your analysis of the article. This article should be cited in the text in the introduction of your paper.  Use the textbook as a reference to support your ideas or decision regarding the appropriateness of the methodology used in the article, should cite Fain in the text of the paper and then include as a complete reference on the reference page.     Using on this research article listed please answer the question below.  Article: Inpatient fall prevention from the patient’s perspective: A qualitative study: Link Attached  Textbook: READING, UNDERSTANDING, AND APPLYING Nursing Research Fifth Edition James A. Fain, PhD, RN, BC-ADM, FAA: Link Attached.     PLEASE KEEP THE HEADING FOR EACH AREA NOTED  I.        The Researcher  a.       Who is the researcher?  b.      What qualifies him/her to undertake the study?  c.       Who sponsored the research and/or provided sources of funding?     II.      The Title  a.     Is the title of reasonable length? Clear? Concise?  b.     Are the important study variables mentioned in the title? If so, what are they?  c.      Does the title suggest the population under investigation? If so, who?     III.    The Problem Statement  a.       Was the problem statement clearly stated?  b.      In your judgement, is the study significant to nursing practice? State your rationale.  c.       What are the research variables and are research variables explained?  d.      Does the problem meet the criterion of research ability? If so, state how. If not, why not?     IV.    Protection of Human Rights  a.  Were the rights of subjects observed? Did the researcher address any ethical concerns?  b.  Did the researcher(s) clearly state that one of more Institutional Review Boards approved the study? What organization(s) were the IRB’s affiliated with?  c.   If not stated that the research received approval from an IRB, what are your thoughts regarding the absence of approval?  d.   What suggestions would you make to strengthen the protection of the subjects?     V.      Purpose of the study  a.  What did the researcher intend to study?  b.   Is the purpose statement clearly stated or described? Provide rationale for your statement.     VI.    Review of the Literature  a.  Are the articles relevant to the problem?  b.   Are the researcher’s literature sources:  1.  primary?  2.  secondary?  3.  current?  c.  Is the review merely a summary of past work or does it critically appraise and compare the contributions of key studies?  1.  Does it identify weaknesses?  2.  Does it identify important gaps in literature?  d.      Is it logically organized so that it builds a case for conducting a new study?     I.        Theoretical/Conceptual Framework:  a.  Was a theoretical framework clearly described? If yes, describe.  b.  If no, does the researcher explain why a framework was not used?  c.   If no, does the absence detract from the significance of the research?     II.      Hypotheses/Research Questions  a. Are hypotheses clearly stated? If yes, describe. If no, explain why there might not be a hypotheses.  b. What is the research question(s)?  c.  Is the research question(s) clearly stated in the article?     III.    Research Approach/Design  a. State the research design. Is the method clearly stated in the article?  b. What are the research design’s strengths and weaknesses?  c.  Are the variables clearly defined? Describe.  d. How does the design control for threats to:  1. Internal validity.  2. External validity.     IV.    Sampling and Sample  a.  How was the number of subjects for the study determined?  b.  What were the criteria for sample selection?  c. What was the sampling design used?  d.  Was this a probability or nonprobability method of selection?  e.  Was the sample size appropriate? Was the sample representative?  f.   How many subjects were lost during the course of the research study? Were the reasons for loss (attrition) of subjects explained? Did the researcher(s) explain how this loss affected the study outcomes?  g. To what population can the findings be generalized?  h. What suggestion would you make to strengthen the sample selection?     I.        Data Collection Methods  a.   What procedures were used to collect data? Were the procedures clearly identified and described by the researcher(s)? If no, explain.  b.  Are the instruments/scales used to collect the data appropriate for the problem or method?  c.   Are these instruments and scales reliable? Valid?  1.   Type of reliability? How was it established?  2.   Type of validity? How was it established?  d.  Did the researcher(s) clearly explain if the tools had been tested for validity and reliability?  e.  Are the scoring procedures explained? Answer for each instrument used.     II.            Data Analysis  a.   Did the researcher clearly explain how the data analysis was performed? Explain.  b.  Are the data analysis procedures appropriate to the data collected?  c.   If Quantitative: What statistical measures were used to analyze the data?  d.  If Quantitative: What types of tables were presented? Were the tables clearly labeled? What data was included in the tables?  e.  If Qualitative: What qualitative data analysis method was used to analyze the data? Did the researcher explain this process?     III.           Results  a.   Did the researcher clearly describe the results (outcomes) of the study?  b.  Did the study deviate from the original plan? Were all hypotheses and questions analyzed? Describe.  c.   Quantitative: Did the researcher(s) clearly describe statistical analysis?  d.  Does the researcher address the results in relationship to all research questions and/or hypotheses stated in the article? If yes, explain. If no, describe what was not addressed.     IV.          Discussion  a.   Does the researcher(s) clearly discuss the limitations, the outcomes, and threats to internal and external validity of the study results?  b.  Does the researcher relate the findings to the problem or purpose of the study?  c.   Does the researcher state whether study results support or refute previous studies?  d.  Are there any unexpected findings?     V.            Implications and Recommendations  a.   Has the researcher identified implications beyond the purpose originally identified in the study? Are they warranted? Give your rationale.  b.  Has the researcher(s) indicated the implications of the findings for nursing practice, education and/or research?  c.   What were the researcher’s recommendations?  d.  Are the recommendations thorough, consistent with the findings, and consistent with related research results?  e.  Are recommendations made concerning how the study’s methods might be improved?  f.  What recommendations are made for future research investigations?  g.  Is the information provided in this study sufficiently clear and complete so that the study may be replicated?  h.  Do you agree with the conclusions and recommendations? Based on your critique, do you believe this is a valid study that can be used to change practice or health care in general? Explain