logo

HLSC122 Critical Evaluation of Evidence

   

Added on  2020-05-08

11 Pages2908 Words88 Views
Title pageStudent Name:Unit: HLSC122 Semester 2, 2017Assessment 3: Critical Evaluation of EvidenceWord count:Student name/student number

Introduction: While more and more health research findings were published to contribute tothe social life, there has been increasing concern about the quality and reliability of thisinformation (Rai et al., 2016). Inaccurate findings may lead to imprecise applications. Toprevent the misinformation, it is vital to critically appraise the existing scientific evidencefor better understanding on which information can be considered as appropriate.According to Hill et al., (2001) he defined critical appraisal as a systematic process ofexamining evidence of the research to prove its validity, relevance, and results beforeusing it to make the decision. This was an essential skill to informed decision-making inhealth care practice (Mhaskar et al., 2009). Body:PART AA1. Critical Appraisal of the first article of Hildt et alHildt, E., Lieb, K., & Franke, A. G. (2014). Life context of pharmacological academicperformance enhancement among university students - a qualitative approach. BMCMedical Ethics, 15(1), 23-23. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-23This part will critically appraise an article of “Life context of pharmacologicalacademic performance enhancement among university students - a qualitativeapproach” from Hildt et al (2014). The first thing to do when analyzing a research paperis to look at the authors and their expertise, qualifications, and role in the study (Borbasi& Jackson., 2016). This research was implemented by three authors named ElisabethHildt, Klaus Lieb and Andreas Günter Franke. These researchers were all Professorwith a lot of experiences on the research topic. Especially, the first author is an expert inStudent name/student number

neurotics as stated in the article. Through Google scholar, it is found that they hadworked together on several related topics on illicit stimulants used for mentaldevelopment. They also worked at the University of Mainz where the study wasconducted. The research aim and questions were stated clearly in the abstract andintroduction part. The sensation of pharmacological of enhancing academicperformance using illicit and prescription stimulant like the Methylphenidate among thestudents in the university. The research question included: Why there is the use ofstimulant by the student and other people in academic content? What are some of theeffect experienced by users and the consideration of value? Do the leaners gain anyacademic advantage if they use a stimulant? What are the side effects experiencedfrom the use of stimulant? And finally, what are some of the impacts on student’s life?The aim and questions of this study were specific and appropriate with authors’research intention. From the literature review, it was evident that the author realized that there waslack of scientific pieces of evidence on the research topic that could be used to upkeepthe pro/cognitive things in individuals who were healthy in line with the effect of “smartdrug”. And the extent in which academic concert can be judged from getting high,parting, and other devotions are not well indicated. Besides, it was found that thewidespread use of the potential cognitive drug on campuses and high school is aboutthe very less pro-cognitive effect and side effects mentioned in the literature and giventhe probability of not taking drugs as prescribed and illegal drugs. It was also realizedthat there was no qualitative research on the topic. The explanation for the dominantStudent name/student number

sensation of academic enactment cannot be explained by the existing epidemiologicalstudies. And can only be speculated concerning motivational factors and deeperreasons. Therefore the author may decide to eliminate some of the lack of empiricalscientific data concerning real-world effects and contextual factors of academicperformance enhancement.Regarding the research methodology; this was a qualitative research utilizing anextensive self-developed semi-structured interview guideline in a face-to-face setting.With the abovementioned type of research questions, a qualitative research was themost suitable method to answer them. Regarding sampling method, participants wereaccessed by public invitation through placards posting on public bulletin boards in theUniversity of Mainz campus inquiring about student who had attempted to use illicit orprescription (psycho) stimulants for cognitive enhancement devotions to contact theresearch team secretly via email. The exclusion criteria of participant selection wereshown in the method section. The study only accommodated healthy students who hadno psychiatric disorder, and current doctors’ instructions of medication wereaccommodated in the findings. Due to this limitations, only a few students participated inan interview. Only 18 students have reported the non-medical use of illicit stimulantsand a prescription for academic performance. And the article did not show anystatement related to the saturation criteria of this population. The data analysis wasconducted to ensure the objectivity with anonymous transcriptions and two independentraters. But the interviewer bias and recall bias had not discussed yet. In specific, it couldbe presented when the researchers asked about their experience on negative sideeffects or increase in mental performance or when the participant could exchangeStudent name/student number

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
HLSC122 Inquiry in Health Care Assignment
|11
|2491
|111

HLSC122 Inquiry in Health Care : Assignment
|11
|2478
|170

Critical Evaluation of Evidence
|9
|1986
|63

Critical evaluation of evidence: Barriers for the application of evidence in academic research
|12
|2850
|290

HLSC122: Evidence For Practice Nursing Assignment
|11
|2726
|67

Inquiry in Health Care - Assignment
|12
|2871
|64