Tool for Critiquing Qualitative Research | Assessment Template

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
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
(b) Explain your response below:
Upon close examination, it can be observed that
the qualitative study by Carlson et al. (2019), has clearly stated the research
question to be explored as well as the purpose of study in the abstract as well as
in the later sections of the introduction after comprehensively establishing the
background of the study. In both the abstract as well as in the introduction,
Carlson et al. (2019) have stated that the aim and objectives of this qualitative
research was to explore the various perceptions and experiences encountered
by parents while accessing influenza vaccination for their hospitalised children,
for the purpose of informing strategies for improved uptake of influenza
immunisations. Providing a clear aim and purpose of a study, is a major
strengths since it informs readers on what to expect from the study, the
underlying principles of the research question as well as rationale for exploration
by the respective authors (Patterson and Dawson 2017).
Question 2: Relevance to nursing/midwifery practice
(a) Explain how this question was relevant to nursing/midwifery practice: It is within
the scope of nursing practice to administer vaccinations for the public.
Additionally, nurses as well as midwifes are also obliged to educate patients and
vulnerable populations like pregnant mothers on appropriate maternal and child
health, under which, the need for immunisation forms a key topic of discussion

for both the mother and her child or developing foetus (Turner et al. 2017). Since
the research by Carlson et al. (2019), aims to explore the subjective experiences
and thoughts, as well as the barriers encountered by parents concerning
vaccinating their children against influenza, it is of relevance to nursing practice
since it informs nurses on the possible perceptions and reasons underlying low
levels of awareness and health literacy prevalent across parents concerning this
issue. Nurses, can thus, address the same in future nursing practice, by referring
to the findings of this study when educating parents on influenza vaccinations
(Halcomb and Hickman 2016). Additionally, the research by Carlson et al.
(2019), also sheds light on strategies with which parents can enhance uptake of
vaccinations for their children, which is also relevant to nursing practice since it
informs nurses on key interventions upon which they can educate families on
regarding influenza immunisations.
Question 3: Ethics
(a) What were the possible risks of participating in the study?
Some of the major risks for parents participating in the study were the risk of having
their privacy and confidentiality affected as well as a possible breach of their
personal data since the research comprised of specifically identifying and
interacting with parents of hospitalised children as well as procuring their
perceptions concerning the issue of immunisation. Additionally, a key risk for
parents belonging to culturally diverse populations like Aboriginal and/or Torres
Strait Islander (ATS) was the risk of facing judgment or cultural insensitivity due to
the unique cultural views held by them (Carlson et al. 2019).
(b) Were these risks clearly identified by the authors?: Yes
Yes, some of the risks, such as loss of culturally safety and risk of a creating a
judgmental atmosphere were clearly recognised, identified and mentioned by the
authors in the section on ‘Data Analysis’. However, there seemed to be no explicit
statement by the authors concerning the risk of privacy and confidentiality of
breach by parents participating in the study (Carlson et al. 2019).
(c) If risks were identified by the authors, how did they propose to minimise risk?
Despite not clearly mentioning the risk of privacy and confidentiality breach, the
authors however proposed to minimise the risk by only including those parents who
had provided informed consent as well as by using pseudonyms to protect the
original identity of the participating parents. Additionally, to minimise the risk of
cultural insensitivity, the authors proposed to minimise the risk by allowing the
entry of an Indigenous healthcare professional or a family member or friend of ATS
parents who were participating in the study during the interview process (Carlson et
al. 2019). The considering of such risk minimisation strategies by the authors can
be considered as a strength in terms of complying with ethical needs of participants
(Dal-Ré et al. 2019).
(d) Did the authors state that they had approval from an ethics committee to
undertake the study?: Yes
Yes, the authors clearly stated approval was obtained from the Sydney
Children’s Hospital Network Human Research Ethics Committee
(HREC/16/SCHN/419) (Carlson et al. 2019).

(e) How did the authors obtain informed consent from participants?
Informed consent was obtained from participants in the form of a written record
by the authors by first approaching parents of hospitalised children for influenza
with a ‘consent pack’, either via telephone or via personally approaching them at
the healthcare organization with assistance from the nurse (Carlson et al. 2019).
(f) Did you identify and potential risks associated with the study that were not
identified by the authors and if so, what were they?
In addition to privacy and cultural safety, a possible breach which can be identified
but not considered by the authors of the study was the risk of a security breach of
personal data obtained from parents participating in the study. While changing
names can help in protecting privacy, the same does not address the risk of
security breaches and leakage of personal participant data. There was thus a need
to consider and mention the strategies used to safely store the data obtained from
participants by the authors of this study (Eling and Loperfido 2017).
Question 4: Study Methodology
(a) What the chosen methodology for this study?
The chosen methodology of the study was qualitative in nature and comprised
of implementing semi-structured interviews for parents participating in the
study. Additionally, the response so obtained were analysed using qualitative
data analysis methods like thematic analysis (Carlson et al. 2019).
(b) Was this choice suitable for the given research problem/question?
Yes
(c) Explain your response to (b): Qualitative data collection methods like interviews are
useful in procuring in-depth, detailed information on the subjective views and
perceptions held by participants, which otherwise cannot be quantified by objective
quantitative methods. Additionally, qualitative data analytical methods like thematic
analysis are useful in categorisation large amount of detailed subjective data to provide
specific answers to research questions. Since this study aimed to address the subjective
opinions, experiences and barriers faced by parents regarding immunising their children
from influenza – inclusion of such qualitative methodologies can be considered as
suitable (Syiroj, Pardosi and Heywood 2019; Carlson et al. 2019).
Question 5: Data Collection/Rigour
(a) Describe how the data was collected for this study (interview, observation, etc.):
Demographic data from the participating parents were obtained using hospital
surveillance and administrative data using nursing assistance. The authors then used
semi structured, telephonic interviews to obtain data on intrapersonal, interpersonal,
community, organizational and policy factors influencing the uptake of vaccinations by
parents with children hospitalised due to influenza (Carlson et al. 2019).
(b) Did the researchers provide the participants with the opportunity to check the collected
data

or research findings?
No, the authors checked the collected data for accuracy amongst themselves
but did not mention regarding providing parents the opportunity to check their
responses prior to final data collection analysis (Carlson et al. 2019).
(c) Did the researchers continue recruiting people to the study until data saturation
was reached?
No, the authors did not continue to recruit parents for the study after data
saturation, in the form of repeated emergence of similar themes were observed
(Carlson et al. 2019).
(d) Did the study use multiple data collection methods (e.g. collect data from more
than one source)? No, the authors did not used multiple
data collection methods and relied only on telephonic interview responses for
collecting data from parents concerning factors influencing influenza
immunisation (Carlson et al. 2019).
(e) Explain how the points in (b), (c) and (d) contribute to the trustworthiness of the
overall research findings: The consideration for halting participant recruitment
after achievement of data saturation by the authors is reflective of significant
trustworthiness of the data since continuing to collect data despite saturation
increases the risk of procuring findings which are biased with repetition or
overlapping of similar themes (Yardley 2017). However, the absence of not
providing participants the opportunity to cross check the data prior to analysis
raises doubts on trustworthiness since it reflects the risk of responses being
biased by authors. Additionally, the absence of using multiple sources to collect
the data also raises doubts on trustworthiness since it reflects the possibility of
using responses which have been biased, or incorrectly given by participants on
the perception of being ‘socially desirable’ (Sleed, Slade and Fonagy 2018).
Question 6: Participants
(a) How many participants were included in the study? 27 parents and caregivers of 45
children hospitalised due to influenza participated in the study (Carlson et al. 2019).
(b) What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria? Parents of children who were
admitted with a diagnosed and laboratory confirmation for influenza across
paediatric, tertiary hospitals in South Australia and New South Wales, between April
and October 2017, were included for the study. Of these, parents of children aged
below 6 months, 6 months or above with comorbidities and aged above 6 months
devoid of comorbidities were included. Since purposive sampling was used by
authors, parents of children who did not meet above criteria or did not provide
consent were excluded (Carlson et al. 2019).
(c) Explain how the participants were recruited: Parents of children hospitalised due to
influenza as per the time period mentioned above were first identified using
surveillance data from paediatric tertiary hospitals. They were then recruited based
on informed consent after approaching either via telephone or at the hospital with the