Evidence for Practice

Evidence for Practice
1

Introduction:
Research contribute significantly to establish evidence for any specific issue. Research allows
researcher and service provider to inform and monitor specific issue or practice through
research publication. However, all the published research articles are not of equal merit and
validity. Hence, to validate the usefulness and applicability of issue of drug checking at
events; critical appraisal of research article entitled, “Drug Checking: A prevention measure
for a heterogeneous group with high consumption frequency and polydrug use - evaluation of
zurich’s drug checking services” is undertaken. Critical appraisal of the research article is
undertaken in terms of different aspects such as authorship, research questions, aims or
hypothesis, research design, research methods, results and limitations and applicability of the
findings of the study as evidence to the real-life scenario.
Authorship:
All the authors who contributed to this research are well qualified and experienced to conduct
the mentioned research. Authors did not report measures to address the biasness during data
collection and analysis. Authors should not have any conflict of interest while conducting
study (Streubert, & Carpenter, 2011). Authors did not have any conflict of interest for
conducting this study.
Research question, aim and hypothesis:
Research question, aim and hypothesis is not mentioned clearly. Research question of this
research could have been stated based on the relevant literature. Designing of the research
question based on the literature would have ensured rationale and validity of the research
study. Mentioning of the aims of the study would have been helped reader to understand the
focus of the research and to understand the objectives of the research (Guetterman, Fetters,
and Creswell, 2015). Validity of the research can be effectively improved through aligning
research question, hypothesis, aims and objectives with methodology, research design, data
collection and outcome of the study (Korstjens and Moser, 2017). Since, aims and objectives
of the research were not stated clearly; it would be difficult to assess whether methodology of
the research was in alignment with aims and objectives.
Research Design:
Research studies can be either qualitative or quantitative or mixed qualitative-quantitative.
However, researchers did not clearly mention which type of study was implemented for
2

conducting study. However, from the results it was evident that mixed qualitative-
quantitative research method was implemented for conducting the study. Information such as
types of illicit drugs can be effectively collected through qualitative research and information
such as frequency and quantity of substance use can be effectively collected through
quantitative research. Research design usually being selected based on the relevant literature
and expected outcome (Rubin, & Babbie, 2010; Polit and Beck, 2010). However, in this
research article; research design of previously conducted studies was not mentioned. Hence,
it is not clear whether adopted research deign is appropriate for this study or not. Research
design used in this study is grounded theory which is specifically useful in exploring the
social phenomenon and human behaviour. It is evident that grounded theory has been
implemented in this study because behaviour of young people in relation to the drug
consumption was being studied. Moreover, grounded theory is applicable to real life
situations (Henandez, 2011).
Research Methods:
Participants recruitment strategy is one of the important aspects of the research study.
Participants recruitment should be able to answer the research question and it should fulfil the
aims of this study. Moreover, participants recruitment of the study should be in accordance
with the setting, timeframe and boundaries of the study. Sample incorporated in this study
were belongs to city of Zurich (setting), drug checking users between 2001 to 2010
(timeframe) and consumption of illegal drugs (boundaries). Sampling strategy could have
been mentioned to understand whether reported sampling strategy is fulfilling the
requirement of sample recruitment. Recruitment of participants with the specific
characteristics proved beneficial in accurate analysis of results and to eliminate chances of
confounding results (Newell & Burnard, 2011; Rutberg and Bouikidis, 2018). Purposive
sampling method could have been better method of data collection because it is being
considered as the suitable method for the recruitment of participants with specific
characteristics. In this study, participants with specific characteristics such as illegal drug
consumption and availing drug checking services were recruited. Purposive sampling method
is appropriate method for this research because it is applicable to both qualitative and
quantitative research. Generalizations of data can be made through samples collected through
purposive sampling method. Data can be collected through niche demographics with
achieving maximum variation in the recruited samples. Purposive sampling method is prone
to researcher’s bias and there are chances of collection of inaccurate data (Moser and
3