CASP Qualitative Analysis: Arslanian-Engoren and Scott (2016).

CASP Qualitative Analysis: Arslanian-Engoren and Scott (2016).

1.Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research?

Yes, qualitative research answers a question designed by the study other than a hypothesis. Therefore, the researchers should state the study’s aims and outline the research questions (Anderson,2017).

The research aims for the article under investigation are clearly stated; the authors start by outlining the problem that creates a need for the research and outlines the study’s overall purpose and objectives. The research aims to identify women’s perception of cardiac triage for women with myocardial infarction (MI) in the emergency department (ED). The authors indicate that despite the United States’ (US) efforts to promote timely and high-quality care, the goal is yet to realize for ED patients with severe MI. Therefore, the research aims to identify the cardiac triage experiences of women with MI in the ED. The specific aims include;1) Asking women with acute MI to explain their experiences with cardiac triage;2) Identifying the barriers or factors that promote or hinder accurate and timely identification of the MI symptoms;3) to examine the views disparities of MI treatment among women (Arslanian-Engoren & Scott,2016).

2. Is a qualitative methodology appropriate?

Yes, a qualitative method is undoubtedly an appropriate approach for the analysis. Qualitative method is applied when the researchers seek to understand the patient’s, community’s, and health care provider’s experiences and attitudes as in the article. The method intends to answer the questions that relate to “how,” “why,” and “what” of a phenomenon instead of “the how many” and “how much” in this case, the researchers intend to answer the “what” question. The qualitative methodology involves using small discussion groups to examine their attitudes like the researchers’ focus group discussion. Additionally, qualitative analysis allows for in-depth interviews to understand the study participants (Hammarberg, Kirkman, and de Lacey,2016). the researchers allowed the participants to describe their experiences. The qualitative analysis data is not countable or measurable, like perceptions as in the article. The study seeks to examine women’s attitudes towards cardiac triage intervention against Myocardial infarction. (Arslanian-Engoren & Scott,2016).

3 Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research?

Yes, the research design outlines how the researchers implemented the research methodology. The researchers conducted qualitative, descriptive research using the focus groups. The authors indicate that the University of Michigan IRB reviewed the research design and confirmed that it aligned with the IRB review’s exempt protocol. The researchers obtained Written informed consent from the participants before the inception of the discussion. The researchers also identified the data collection methods used for the research, which entail; email communication, direct mail letters, and posting on the website and identified emails as the preferable method of contacting the potential participants. The researchers indicate that they engaged experienced qualitative researchers to review the data analysis and identified themes (Arslanian-Engoren & Scott,2016). The authors implemented a qualitative research methodology through the focus group discussions recorded through audio, to enhance the accuracy of transcription and dialogue theme, validity, and exploration of the meaning. The researchers also used an interview guide that introduced the discussion topic and linked the introduction questions to the specific study questions used for the study(Arslanian-Engoren & Scott,2016).

4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research?

Yes, recruitment is a critical consideration for any research. However, in qualitative analysis, the researchers intend to gain the opinions of a particular group of individuals with prior experience to the phenomenon under the study (Anderson,2017).

Arslanian-Engoren and Scott (2016) indicate that the researchers obtained informed consent from all the participants before beginning the discussion. Several strategies used to recruit participants include the (UMClinicalStudies.org) website. The researchers sent Direct mailings to women with experiences about cardiac rehabilitation, which confirms that the right participants were selected to address the research questions. The recruitment methods outlined the study’s aim, eligibility for participation, time- taken for the research, honorarium, and the principal investigator (PI). The study participants’ eligibility was women above 18 years who suffered from MI for a period not exceeding two years ago, English literate, is willing to share their experience, and can commit about an hour to participate in the research. The researchers indicate that a two-year gap for post-MI was adequate to give the participants sufficient time t complete their cardiac rehabilitation and improve their chances of recruiting potential participants upon completing their cardiac rehabilitation (Arslanian-Engoren & Scott,2016).

5. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?

Yes, qualitative research applies one or several methods of data collection. The first strategy used in the study is the field observation by recording the focus group discussions through audio. The next way is the interviews, where the participants share their experiences, and finally, the document analysis where the researchers review the data collected.

Arslanian-Engoren and Scott (2016) indicate that the research took place at the University of Michigan nursing school or any other affiliated institution, cardiac rehabilitation center, or tertiary care. The researchers collected data through a focus group methodology. The researchers sought consent from each participant and allowed participants to seek clarification before the onset of the discussion. The focus group discussions used the audio recording to enable the PI to monitor and listen to the focus group discussions, transcript the data accurately, and enhance validity. The researchers used a clear interview guide for the research that introduced the discussion topic and logically linked the preliminary questions to the critical study questions and consequently provided a space for comments. The researchers described data saturation as obtaining similar feedback on repeated questions upon exploring the experiences exhaustively and the similarities with the participants’ experiences (Arslanian-Engoren & Scott,2016). The research was comprehensive. There was no specific focus on misleading aspects of data as indicated through accurate transcription of the recordings, multiple examinations of the data to ensure the researchers did not leave out anything, and considerations of the participants’ diverse experiences.

6.Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered?

Can’t Tell, The PI, an experienced qualitative researcher, and the first author provided training about focused group methodology and conducted the focus groups. A research assistant received training from the PI. The participants were allowed to make inquiries before the discussion began. The participants were encouraged to interact and respond naturally. Lastly, the participants were asked to give their insights about disparate MI interventions and describe their experience. The researchers allowed the participants to add more information. The researchers excluded the woman who revealed that she had arrived at the ED using an ambulance during the focus group discussion as she qualifies for the exclusion criteria. However, there is no description of how the researchers examined their bias influence (Arslanian-Engoren & Scott,2016).

7. Have ethical issues been taken into consideration

Yes, Ethical considerations are critical during the research. Ethics is about getting approval from the ethical committee and upholding the participants’ rights by ensuring anonymity and confidentiality. The ethical principles also dictate that the benefits should outweigh the harms (Nieswiadomy and Bailey,2018). Arslanian-Engoren and Scott (2016), the researchers considered ethical issues during the research. The recruitment methods, emails, direct mail letters, and web postings described the study’s purpose, inclusion criteria, the required time for the research, honorarium, and the PI’s contact details. The study participants were adults age 18 years and above thus can give informed consent. The researchers obtained written permission and allowed the participants to make any inquiries before the focus group discussion began. During analysis, the researchers demonstrated respect for human participants by excluding the woman who revealed that she had arrived at the ED through an ambulance during the focus group session. The research findings were beneficial for practice, policy, research, and education. However, there is no mention that the study sought the Ethics Committee approval(Arslanian-Engoren and Scott,2016).

8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?

Yes, Anderson (2017).  outline that one indicator for a rigorous data analysis is when the researchers seek clarification from the participants through member checking. The approach is applied to confirm if the participants’ views were interpreted correctly, check for any deviations from the presented facts, and ensure if the decoded data is sensitive to the participants with diverse opinions.

Arslanian-Engoren and Scott (2016) indicate that the researchers applied thematic analysis; they read the verbatim transcripts and the field notes several times and examined the emerging themes in each question and all the questions. Then they developed code ding categories, coded the data, and created coding categories. Additionally, the researchers examined the data to ensure that they included all the data in the research. The analyzed data was the experiences shared by the participants in the focus groups. The researchers established the adequacy of data upon achieving data saturation.

Additionally, the researchers mitigate the risk of bias by confirming the credibility and dependability of the findings through feedback from the participants. Consequently, an experienced qualitative researcher confirmed the validity and verifiability of the results by reviewing the data analysis and deriving the themes, thus reducing potential bias. Lastly, the researchers established interrater-reliability through the Miles and Huberman formula (Arslanian-Engoren and Scott,2016).

9. Is there a clear statement of findings?

Yes, the researchers applied the respondent’s validation to establish the credibility, confirmability, and verifiability of the findings as they sought for the participant’s feedback. They also allowed the participants to affirm the narrative summaries. The discussion satisfactorily provides insights into the MI patient experiences with cardiac triage interventions. The original research question is the cardiac triage experiences among women presented in the ED for MI. There are explicit findings presented in the discussion to answer the “What” question. All the arguments in the findings section sufficiently support the rationale of the study. However, there are no arguments against the purpose statement (Arslanian-Engoren and Scott,2016).

10. How valuable is the research?

The researchers present the study’s implication on clinical practice, education, policy, and further research. The study findings will help the ED staff evaluate their practice’s impact on a negative bias on cardiac triage decisions for women with MI. The research will help young women understand MI’s presentation, thus reporting to the health care providers for early interventions. The study also helps in education planning for the ED staff to prepare them against unbiased cardiac triage decisions for women with MI. The policymakers will use the research findings to address the gender ad age biases, improve the infrastructure to promote timely communication and mitigate barriers that may hinder effective delivery of care (Arslanian-Engoren and Scott,2016).

CASP Qualitative Analysis: Arslanian-Engoren and Scott (2016).

References

Anderson, V. (2017). Criteria for evaluating qualitative research. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1-9.

Arslanian-Engoren, C., & Scott, L. D. (2016). Women’s perceptions of biases and barriers in their myocardial infarction triage experience. Heart & Lung, 45(3), 166-172.

Hammarberg, K., Kirkman, M., & de Lacey, S. (2016). Qualitative research methods: when to use them and how to judge them. Human Reproduction, 31(3), 498-501.

Nieswiadomy, R. M., & Bailey, C. (2018). Foundations of nursing research.