1200 word count including 150 word direct quotes. Marks weighing is 50 %
1 Title Assessment 3: Critical appraisal of evidence: Exemplar Essay Using Fictious References Student name: Mary Jo Smith-Jones Z0001234 HLSC122 Semester 2, 2019 Assessment 3: Scenario 3, Critical appraisal of research study examining bacteria on student’s mobile phones Word count: 1200 words 2 Introduction There is a scarcity of research on the bacterial contamination of mobile phones of health care workers worldwide (Kent, Marsh, May & XI, 2020, p.5). This should be a concern for health care workers, as it is accepted practice to allow students, and qualified health care professionals, to bring their mobile phones to health care settings (Kent et al., 2020). This paper will critically appraise one of the few primary research studies on this subject (Tailor, Nikita, Naiker, Naivalu, & Kumar, 2019) using a set of questions to identify the strengths and weakness of key sections of the study, namely: authorship, research question, research design, research methods and lastly limitations and results. In addition, an outline enablers and barriers to the adoption of the study recommendations or findings in relation to a given scenario and clinical question. PART A – Critical appraisal Authorship White (2018) maintains that an appraisal of research literature should include an appraisal of the quality of authorship, which may include, “cited credentials, affiliations and known expertise in the health discipline on the research topic” (p.12). The authorship of the study being appraised in this paper (Tailor et al, 2019), comprised four authors who had a Bachelor of medical laboratory science, and one who was a qualified dentist, affiliated with universities. It can therefore be concluded that the authorship was a strength of this study, given cited credentials, qualifications and affiliations. 3 However, a weakness of this study was the omission of a disclosure statement in the study, indicating that there was no ‘conflict of interest’. A conflict of interest is described by White (2018, p. 6) as a situation when there are commercial, legal, financial, or any other opposing interests that may affect the study. Most primary research studies also require a source of funding (White, p.4). However, in this study, the authors reported a lack of funds, which reduced the efficacy of their data collection (Tailor et al, 2019, p. 101), having to reuse disposable gloves, which was a weakness of this study. Research question & Justification This study (Tailor et al., 2019) sought to identify the “colonisation of microorganisms and the variety of bacteria present” on the mobile phones of students at a university in Fiji (p. 106). The aim was clearly stated and was a very relevant topic, given the scarcity of research on this topic (Kent et al., 2020, p.5). The justification for the research – found in the ‘introduction’ – was a weakness of this paper, as discussion was supported by only eight studies, and these were studies published from 2009 to 2014, rather than close to the date of the study’s publication of 2019. It could be assumed that a thorough search of the literature on the topic – bacterial contamination of mobile phones – was not undertaken by the authors. But this may not have been the case, as Reid and Mathers (2016) suggest, authors are required to delete important past research literature in the ‘introduction’ sections of their manuscripts, to meet word count restrictions imposed by journal editors. However, the authors did note three key points in this section, being: mobile phones are used by health care workers(HCW) in clinical settings; studies 4 have reported that HCWs frequently touch their mobile phones, and seldom clean them; and argued that their study was filling a gap in the literature, on how contaminated these devices can be. Thus, the discussion within the introduction section was a strength of this study, as it was well structured, and demonstrated several solid arguments to support the undertaking of this study. Research design The authors stated that they used a cross-sectional research design, with randomisation (Tailor et al, 2019, p. 106). A cross-sectional design is described as a quantitative approach, that samples a population, at a given time, and when used with randomisation for sample selection reduces the risk of sampling or selection bias (White, 2020, p.100). The authors’ choice of a quantitative approach was appropriate for the study aim, given the need to obtain quantitative laboratory data, at a specific time in a sample of a population (i.e. undergraduate health professional students), which is a strength of this study. However, the authors did not explain their rationale for choosing their design, which is a weakness of the study. Further discussion of bias will follow in the ‘research methods’ section. Research methods With regard to sample selection, a weakness of the study, was the authors’ omission details related to selecting the 50 students, such as: what were students studying?, what year level were they ?, were student names picked from student records?, or did the authors randomly approach students in the university grounds? In addition, although the authors obtained informed consent from each student, they failed to mention if the Ethic’s Committee of the Fiji 5 National University approved the study, which is a significant omission. It is surprising that this study was therefore actually published at all, without a statement indicating this (Jones et al., 2018). The authors though –which is a strength – stated that specimen from 50 mobile phones were collected and cultured according to a “standard laboratory protocol” (Tailor et al, 2019, p. 106). The reader is left to assume, as medical laboratory scientists, the authors followed standard practice in collecting and processing swabs taken from the mobile phones. A strength of the study was the level of detail provided for data collection and data analysis, with the authors using basic descriptive statistics to analyse the results, which were sufficient, with the inclusion of large coloured tables and figures to illustrate the findings. Measurement bias – faulty methods of data collection – was a problem in this study, as the authors stated they did not follow protocol when swabbing phones, with regard to use of clean gloves for each phone (Reid & Mathers, 2016, p.34; Tailor et a., 2019, p.101). Results and Limitations 120 words (10% of word count) PART B – Enablers and Barriers 240 words (20% of word count) Your discussion in Part B should refer to the scenario and clinical question. Conclusion 120 words (10% of word count) 6 References Jones, B., Smith, J., Barker, J.S., Finn, K., Donn, K., Yebohha, J., Withers, B.M. (2018). Putting research into practice: A primer for undergraduate health professional students. London, UK; Bartlett & Jones. Kent, S., Marsh, T.R., May, B., & XI, Y. (2020). A cross-sectional study of hospital acquired infections traced to staff attire and equipment. Evidence Based Practice in New Zealand Health Care, 3(4), 1-100. Doi: 10.11111.ghd.345 Reid, V., & Mathers, S. (2016). Textbook of health research: Evidence-based practice. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Tailor, B., Nikita, N., Naicker, A., Naivalu, T., & Arvind Kumar, R. (2019). What bacteria are present on the mobile phones of students? New Zealand Journal of Medical Laboratory Science, 73(3), 106–110. https://www.nzimls.org.nz/journals- recent,article,,77,333,What+bacteria+are+present+on+the+mobile+phones+of+stu dents%3F.html White, E.R. (2020). A student handbook of primary research critical appraisal. London, UK: Elsevier. https://www.nzimls.org.nz/journals-recent,article,,77,333,What+bacteria+are+present+on+the+mobile+phones+of+students%3F.html https://www.nzimls.org.nz/journals-recent,article,,77,333,What+bacteria+are+present+on+the+mobile+phones+of+students%3F.html https://www.nzimls.org.nz/journals-recent,article,,77,333,What+bacteria+are+present+on+the+mobile+phones+of+students%3F.html HLSC122 Evidence for Practice Semester 1, 2020 Assessment Task 3 SCENARIO 2: Stress in university students Chooseya is a first-year international student studying at university in Australia. She recently received her first semester results, which were not good, with a fail in one unit. Chooseya feels that she too stressed and not capable of completing her three-year degree program. A friend of Chooseya’s - Joanne - encourages her to pick herself up emotionally and to continue to peruse her studies. Joanne feels that failing a unit in your first semester of university can be due to many factors. Joanne decides to search for literature on how stress affects academic grades in university students, in an effort to support her friend. Clinical question Does stress affect academic performance in university students? Reference Frazier, P., Gabriel, A., Merians, A., & Lust, K. (2019) Understanding stress as an impediment to academic performance. Journal of American College Health, 67(6), 562-570. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2018.1499649 Here is LEO link to this quantitative study https://acu-edu-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/sb9f4f/TN_informaworld_s10_1080_07448481_2018_1499649 HLSC122 Evidence for Practice Semester 1, 2020 Assessment Task 3 SCENARIO 2 : Stress in university students Chooseya is a first - year international student studying at university in Australia. She recently received her first semester results, which were not good, with a fail in one unit. Chooseya feels that she too stressed and not capable of completing her thre e - year degree program. A friend of Chooseya’s - Joanne - encourages her to pick herself up emotionally and to continue to peruse her studies. Joanne feels that failing a unit in your first semester of university can be due to many factors. Joanne decides t o search for literature on how stress affects academic grades in university students , in an effort to support her friend. Clinical question D oes stress affect academic performance in university students? Reference Frazier