Assessing the Competence of Evidence-Informed Decision-Making Amongst Health Service Managers

International Social Work 1
International Social Work
By (Student’s Name)
Professor’s Name
College
Course
Date

International Social Work 2
Introduction
The purpose of this report is critique two current peer-reviewed investigation articles titled
'Assessing the Competence of Evidence-Informed Decision-Making Amongst Health Service
Managers' (2017) by Liang, Howard, and Wollersheim, and 'Yarning up with Koori kids' –
hearing the opinions of Australian town Indigenous youngsters about their well-being (2017) by
Priest, Thompson, Mackean, Baker and Waters.
The approach to this report comes from the current research in the social work sector area,
which aims to address areas of concern and implement best possible evidence-based practices
for the prevention of harm to the groups of people.
The report has been broken down into the sections below:
Tool Selection
Liang, Howard, and Wollersheim (2017) used quantitative research in the form of a cohort
study applied to two cohort groups of Health Service Managers.
In contrast, Priest, Thompson, Mackean, Baker, and Waters (2017) used a qualitative
approach to listen to Australian urban Indigenous children.
Critical Appraisal

International Social Work 3
Both research papers included in this appraisal are peer-reviewed. The author noted a
rigorous screening and reviewing was done to ensure the research quality. The reviewers would
not know who authored the article; reducing bias that the article succeeds or fails on its merit.
Cohort Study
The article by Liang, Howard, and Wollersheim (2017) was identified as a cohort study,
which is generally not as dependable as randomized measured lessons. Cohort studies are used
to find source of a problem or to evaluate the outcome and impact of treatment when
randomized controlled clinical attempts are impossible. The research study was observational,
not experimental.
Some difficulties with cohort studies are that they need considerable sample sizes, which are
uneconomical, inefficient and ineffective and can take long times to research. Liang, Howard,
and Wollersheim (2017) identified some limitations of their study themselves, when they stated
that the 'participants were volunteers, thus not randomly selected' to participate in this research
study. 'The sample size (used) was small' and while 'enough to detect significant differences
between the assessment types and the two hospitals' it does not allow for an unbiased and in-
depth analysis of the study to be done to gain an insight into the statistical variances and
possible hypnotizes made. There would be issues with trustworthiness concerning varied
population. As most qualitative information is collected through connections with partakers
through interviews, surveys, questionnaires, or focus groups, a researcher must find participants
who are willing to speak about their experiences. The selection of participants within cohorts in
the first place is problematic, with questions raised about whether they are representative of the