Prepare a critical analysis of a quantitative study focusing on protection of human participants, data collection, data analysis, problem statement, and interpretation of findings. Each study analysis...

Prepare a critical analysis of a quantitative study focusing on protection of human participants, data collection, data analysis, problem statement, and interpretation of findings.

Each study analysis will be 750-1,000 words and submitted in one document.

Refer to the resource Research Critique, Part 2. Questions under each heading should be addressed as a narrative, in the structure of a formal paper.

Prepare this assignment according to the APA format. Please don't forget introduction and conclusion. Use evidienced based practice for back up. Thank you.

Critical Appraisal Guidelines: Quantitative Study Title of Article Authors Protection of Human Participants Data Collection Data Management and Analysis Findings / Interpretation of Findings Research Critique, Part 2 To write a critical appraisal that demonstrates comprehension of the research study conducted, respond to each of the questions listed under the headings below. Do not answer the questions with a yes or no; rather, provide a rationale or include examples or content from the study to address the questions. CRITICAL APPRAISAL GUIDELINES: QUANTITATIVE STUDY Protection of Human Participants · Identify the benefits and risks of participation addressed by the authors. Were there benefits or risks the authors do not identify? · Was informed consent obtained from the subjects or participants? · Did it seem that the subjects participated voluntarily in the study? · Was institutional review board approval obtained from the agency in which the study was conducted? Data Collection · Are the major variables (independent and dependent variables) identified and defined? What were these variables? · How were data collected in this study? · What rationale did the author provide for using this data collection method? · Identify the time period for data collection of the study. · Describe the sequence of data collection events for a participant. Data Management and Analysis · Describe the data management and analysis methods used in the study. · Did the author discuss how the rigor of the process was assured? For example, does the author describe maintaining a paper trail of critical decisions that were made during the analysis of the data? Was statistical software used to ensure accuracy of the analysis? · What measures were used to minimize the effects of researcher bias (their experiences and perspectives)? For example, did two researchers independently analyze the data and compare their analyses? Findings / Interpretation of Findings · What is the researcher’s interpretation of findings? · Are the findings valid or an accurate reflection of reality? Do you have confidence in the findings? · What limitations of the study were identified by researchers? · Was there a coherent logic to the presentation of findings? · What implications do the findings have for nursing practice? For example, can the study findings be applied to general nursing practice, to a specific population, to a specific area of nursing? · What suggestions are made for further studies? Reference Burns, N., & Grove, S. (2011). Understanding Nursing Research (5th ed.). Elsevier. ISBN-13: 9781437707502 AbstrAct Falls in older people resident within care home settings are common and serious, often resulting in injury and mortality. Yet there is no standardised approach within UK care homes to assessing the risk of falls for individuals or identifying risk factors relevant for that person. The Guide to Action for Falls Prevention Tool – Care Homes (GtACH) was developed with local care homes in Nottinghamshire. Ten care homes were selected to participate in the study, four withdrawing before data collection commenced. Fourteen care home staff across six care homes tested the tool for usability and found it quick (20 minutes) and easy to use, yet only 53% of the recommended interventions highlighted were completed. The GtACH needs further evaluation to test whether its use prompts actions which reduce the number of falls, and the barriers to these actions being taken. KEY WOrDs Falls w Older people w Care homes w Risk factors w Intervention Thinking falls – taking action: a falls prevention tool for care homes Kate Robertson, Pip Logan, Marie Ward, Julia Pollard, Adam Gordon, Wynne Williams, Julie Watson Kate Robertson is Falls Clinical Specialist, County Health Partnerships, Nottingham; Dr Pip Logan is Clinical Associate Professor in Community Rehabilitation, University of Nottingham; Marie Ward is Falls and Bone Health Clinical Specialist, Nottingham CityCare; Julia Pollard is formerly Team Leader, Nottingham CityCare; Dr Adam Gordon is a consultant in geriatric medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust; Wynne Williams is Manager, Church Farm Nursing Home, Nottingham; Julie Watson is Deputy Manager, Church Farm Nursing Home, Nottingham Email: [email protected] Falls in older adults are common. There is consider-able mortality and morbidity associated with falls in care homes, with hip fracture rates significantly higher than in community-dwelling older people, and rates in female care home residents being estimated as high as 50.8 hip fractures per 1000 person years (Rapp et al, 2008). Due to the seriousness of this injury, one fifth of those people will die within a year (Cooper et al, 1993; Liebson et al, 2002). In frailer older people with three or more comorbidities, mortality rises to 33% within a year of fracture (Roche et al, 2005). Beaupre et al (2007) found that most people admitted to hospital from long-term care facilities following a fall and fractured hip do not regain their pre-fracture level of function. Although extensive research has been carried out into effective interventions to reduce falls in community-dwelling older people, there is limited evidence of the effectiveness of such interventions within care homes. In a meta-analysis of falls interventions in a care home setting, Oliver et al (2007) concluded that there was insufficient evidence regarding falls prevention in this setting and that further research is required, but suggested that it makes sense to identify risk factors for the individual and reverse or reduce these where possible. This was supported by Close and Lord (2011) in their clini- cal review of falls risk-screening tools. A further issue is that protocols used to perform risk assessments for falls are often not validated, vary from care home to care home, and do not necessarily trigger individually-tailored interventions (Oliver et al, 2000). We have previously reported the development of a Guide to Action for Falls Prevention Tool (GtA) for use with com- munity-dwelling older people (Robertson et al, 2010). In this article we outline our development of a version for use within care homes: the Guide to Action for Falls Prevention Tool – Care Homes (GtACH). Method Development of the GtAcH The GtACH was developed using published meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials, where studies identified risk factors for falling significant to older people within care homes (not just UK studies) and effective interven- tions shown to reduce falls and injuries in this setting. Clinical experts, including two falls clinical specialists (one a nurse and one an occupational therapist), a physiothera- pist and an academic appraised the literature and adapted the sections of the original GtA that were not deemed appropriate within a care home setting, or were felt to require more detail relevant to older people living in care homes. A pilot version of the GtACH was then produced. The literature review highlighted that the prevalence of dementia among people in care homes increases from 55.6% among those aged 65–69 to 64.8% in those aged 95 and over (Alzheimer’s Society, 2007), so the GtACH was expanded to include cognition, behaviour, comprehension, mood and communication. The section headings of the GtA (falls history, medical history, medication, movement, environment and personal) were retained, but the falls history and medical history sections were separated and expanded while the movement and environment sections were combined. CARE OF THE OLDER PERSON 206� British�Journal�of�Community�Nursing�Vol�17,�No�5 Ethical approval The study was granted ethical approval by Nottingham Research Ethics Committee 1 on 24 February 2009, Ref 09/H0403/2. Evaluation All care homes for older people within the Nottingham city (n=45) and Rushcliffe borough (n=24) areas of Nottinghamshire were invited to participate in the study to trial the GtACH. The letter of invitation was clear that ten care homes would be selected for participation in the study. Sixteen replies (11%) were received, and 10 homes (Nottingham n=7, Rushcliffe n=3) selected using purposive sampling to ensure a representative sample were included (Table 1). The 10 care homes were visited by a researcher and the project explained to the manager. To reduce bias the researchers did not complete the project in care homes where they normally provide a clinical service. Consent to participate was then sought from the care home owner. All the participating care homes had in place existing falls risk-assessment tools within residents’ care plans. These were not validated tools (usually devised by owners or managers) and varied from 6 to 30 questions from which an overall score was produced, stratifying the person as at high, medium or low risk of falls. The researchers requested that care home staff continued to complete their own assessment forms while participating in the study. Training in the use of the GtACH was completed in each home and a training manual, care staff questionnaires and copies of the GtACH supplied. The training sessions lasted for one hour and were carried out within the care home by the falls clinical specialist at a mutually convenient time. Once trained in the use of the tool, staff were asked to com- plete the GtACH with any resident who had fallen in the last month and any resident who fell during the data collection period of two months after the training. The staff completed a semi-structured questionnaire after they had completed the GtACH for the first time to enable the researchers to explore the usability of the GtACH. The questionnaire comprised a combination of closed (for example, time taken to com- plete the GtACH, whether the staff member was qualified as a nurse) and open response questions (for example, any terminology in the GtACH that was considered ambiguous or jargonistic and any omissions to risk factors or actions considered important by the care home staff). A list of care home residents for whom the GtACH had been completed was kept by care home managers. A random sample of these residents were selected for comprehensive data collection, including whether the GtACH had been completed as per the training, whether actions were initiated as a consequence of the GtACH, and who was responsible for initiating actions if they were identified. table 1: Purposive sampling Ca re h om e N ot tin gh am c ity Ru sh cl iff e N ur si ng Re si de nt ia l D em en tia < 20="" b="" ed="" s="" 20="" –4="" 0="" be="" ds=""> 40 b ed s Lo ca l a ut ho ri ty Pr iv at e Ch ar ity In cl ud ed Ex cl ud ed A       B       C  