Tool for Critiquing Qualitative Research

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Student Name:
Student ID:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment 2 template
Word count of the template = approx. 750 words
Tool for critiquing QUALITATIVE research (1500 word-equivalent)Tool for critiquing qualitative research is modified based on the Critical Review Form-
Qualitative Studies ©Law, M., Stewart, D., Pollock, N., Letts, L. Bosch, J., & Westmorland, M.
Instructions:
 Complete all of the questions in the template below in reference to the
article that you have selected. Ensure that you have selected the correct
template (quantitative or qualitative) to match the research method in the
article that you have selected.
 Where there is a Yes/No option in the question, delete the option that
does not apply.
Question 1: Study Purpose/Question
(a) Did the study have a clearly stated purpose/research question?
Yes / No
Yes, the paper stated its purpose or objective clearly in both the abstract and
detailed study section.
(b) Explain your response below:
As mentioned by Borg et al. (2018) in the paper, despite the fact that Australian
government started influenza vaccination for the aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islanders with government funding and hence, the researcher mentioned that the
primary purpose of condition the research was to understanding the means using
which the rate of disease could be reduced. Due to this purpose, the researchers
compared distribution of pamphlets and sending a letter to the parents so that the
effective way to maintain vaccination among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders
could be understood.
Question 2: Relevance to nursing/midwifery practice
(a) Explain how this question was relevant to nursing/midwifery practice.
As per O’Grady et al. (2015), when the government launched the immunisation
of influenza among the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Australia, their

primary aim was to close the gap which is present in the healthcare system that
prevents the aboriginal community to avail the vaccination facility. In such
condition, it is important for the nursing professional and healthcare
professionals to promote the vaccination or immunisation process among the
aboriginal community so that they can understand the importance of it for their
growth and wellbeing. Regan et al. (2016) also mentioned that for growth and
wellbeing of aboriginal community it is important for the healthcare facilities and
professionals that they can effectively spread awareness so that they could
develop trust upon the care facilities and avail the interventions that could
enhance their quality of life by increasing the scope of improvement. Hence, this
research study is relevant in recent nursing profession.
Question 3: Ethics
(a) What were the possible risks of participating in the study?
While conducting the process, it was seen that the participants were divided among
three teams and then they were provided with one specific stream of research with
random allocation in three groups such as the pamphlet group, the letter group and
third with no direct communication In such condition, the only risk that could be
associated with the research process is associated with the third group, as they
were not provided with any direct means of awareness or communication so that
they can take part in the care process. Therefore, their chances of being affected
with influenza would be higher than other two groups involved in the process.
(b) Were these risks clearly identified by the authors?
Yes / No
No, this risk was not identified by the authors in the research process.
(c) If risks were identified by the authors, how did they propose to minimise risk?
As the authors did not identified this risk in the process, no such ways and
strategies to identify the risk and decreasing or minimising risk were identified in
the research process.
(d) Did the authors state that they had approval from an ethics committee to
undertake the study?
Yes, the authors clearly mentioned the ethical approval they took from the Monash
University Human Research Ethics Committee.
Yes / No

(e) How did the authors obtain informed consent from participants?
The researchers used a waiver of consent that was collected from the
Parents/guardians in accordance with the section 2.3.9 of the National Statement of
Australia.
(f) Did you identify and potential risks associated with the study that were not
identified by the authors and if so, what were they?
One such risk that was not identified by the researchers was the inclusion of one
group in the non-communication group and in the process they did not provide the
group with any awareness about the vaccination and immunisation against
influenza. Therefore, the family that is not being able to receive any further
awareness from the government, it could affect their healthcare process. Hence this
is the risk that is associated with the research process.
Question 4: Study Methodology
(a) What the chosen methodology for this study?
The chosen study design for this research paper is multi-arm, parallel, randomised
controlled trial design.
(b) Was this choice suitable for the given research problem/question?
Yes / No
Yes, this choice of research method is appropriate for the research process
conducted in this research paper.
(c) Explain your response to (b):
The primary aim of the paper was to understand the ways using which the
aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders could be provided with effective awareness so
that they can avail the influenza vaccination process developed by the Australian
government. In such condition, to understand the effectiveness of these two ways
and comparing the effectiveness of the interventions with the control group,
application of randomised control trail becomes one of the critical ways to conduct