Critical Analysis: Evidence-Based Practice Study in Nursing

This report critically evaluates the qualitative study by Lizarondo, Grimmer-Somers, and Kumar (2011) exploring allied health practitioners' perspectives on journal clubs as a medium for promoting evidence-based practice. The critique assesses the study's credibility, problem statement, ethical considerations, purpose statement, research design, literature review, sampling strategy, results, and trustworthiness. The analysis highlights both the strengths, such as the use of content analysis and relevant sampling, and limitations, including the lack of detailed information on ethical approvals and some aspects of trustworthiness. The report concludes that while the study offers valuable insights for evidence-based practice, certain limitations necessitate further research to enhance its applicability in nursing and healthcare settings. The evaluation follows the guidelines outlined by Houser (2018) and considers the study's influence on EBP and its implications for clinical practice, decision-making, and healthcare improvements. The student provides a comprehensive assessment of the study's strengths and weaknesses, emphasizing the need for more detailed information to ensure the study's reliability and validity in informing evidence-based practice.

Running head: EVIDENCE BASED RESEARCH
EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE
Introduction
Evidence based practice aids in development of nursing knowledge and future
professional development (Kalb et al., 2015). In this paper, the article by Lizarondo, Grimmer-
Somers and Kumar (2011) will be critiqued using the guideline outlined in Houser (2018).
Discussion
Credibility
The authors are academicians belonging to the evidence based research department of a
notable Australian university, hence indicating academic credibility. From further reading, it can
also be observed that the authors have no conflict of interest hence indicating absence of a
possibility of bias (Houser, 2018). The article is peer reviewed as observed in the sequential
numbering of pages, presence of a volume and issue number and publishing in a peer-reviewed
journal (Lizarondo, Grimmer-Somers & Kumar, 2011). There is however no mention of a date of
review or any mentioning of an external editorial board, hence raising few doubts on research
credibility. However, it can observed that the article’s time frame for publishing is reasonable
and is indicative of a gap of approximately two months. There is however no evidence on
presence of financial connections between the publication of study results. Hence, while this
article seems to be credible for evidence based practice, not fulfilling certain criteria raises
questions on credibility (Lockwood, Munn & Porritt, 2015).
Problem Statement
Upon observing the article’s problem statement, it can be observed that the authors
employed a deductive approach by highlighting a general overview on journal clubs and then

2EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE
narrowing it down to a specific issue of observing perspectives of health practitioners on the
same (Lizarondo, Grimmer-Somers & Kumar, 2011). Problems concerning viability and
acceptability of journal clubs have been clearly highlighted. However, despite highlighting clear
information on concerns associated with journal clubs in evidence based practice and clearly
outlining of the problem statement, the latter was difficult to search and identify due to lack of
appropriate segregation (Houser, 2018). This can be considered as a limitation of in terms of
understanding and comprehension. The study also articulates its significance by highlighting the
adopting a collaborative approach in journal clubs and research discussion and improve evidence
based practice and healthcare change - which are key aspects of nursing professional practice.
However, the same could only be found after extensive reading hence hindering ease in
readability (Butler, Hall & Copnell, 2016).
Ethical Issues
Upon extensive evaluation of the study, no information could be obtained based on
whether the participants’ consent was obtained prior to study recruitment, along with no mention
on the protection of any vulnerable groups or the usage of a risk assessment. There was no
mention of compliance to or ethical documentation of approval from the IRB (Houser, 2018).
These can be considered as major limitations since lack of obtaining participant consent or
conductance of any risk assessment raises questions on the study’s compliance ethical and
humanitarian standards. However, highlighting the presence of an ethical approval from an ethics
committee along with mentioning that interested participants were only selected may indicate
obtaining consent, ethical compliance and non-disclosure (Lizarondo, Grimmer-Somers &
Kumar, 2011). It was also mentioned that debriefing was conducted after every focus group

3EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE
interview session. Hence, while such standards indicate ethical compliance, lack of clarity and
logical flow of information on the same are major limitations (Roberts, 2015).
Purpose Statement and Research Design
It can be observed that the purpose statement concerning the need to explore health
practitioners’ perspectives on journal clubs was arrived after deductive narrowing from a
generalized problem overview on issues concerning viability and acceptability of the same
(Houser, 2018). Despite lack of a separate section, the purpose statement could be easily deduced
hence indicative of credible readability and understanding. The purpose statement, along with
identification of the study aims, also incorporate clearly, the target population of allied health
practitioners and settings associated with a healthcare organizational workplace was clearly
mentioned - indicative of comprehensiveness (Lizarondo, Grimmer-Somers & Kumar, 2011).
The article also scores well in terms of allowing the reader to adequately identify the purpose of
the research by obtaining from an ethics committee and displaying relevant association between
research purpose of health practitioners’ perspective exploration and research design on quality
study conductance. There is however no information on accessibility or financial feasibility of
resources except for mentioning the usefulness of journal clubs in providing difficult-to-retrieve
research papers, hence indicating incomplete information on study purpose (Gentles et al., 2016).
Literature Review
It can be observed that the literature review used by the authors of this article primarily
include studies published within the last 5 years and have been linked extensively to the
identified research problem, coupled with inclusion of most studies with prevalently direct links
to the research question as observed from the extensive in text citations used (Lizarondo,
Grimmer-Somers & Kumar, 2011). While key strengths considering the literature reviewed in

4EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE
this article lies in authors usage of logically sequential, unbiased inclusion of articles - key
limitations can be detected in terms of absence of a summary of key insights obtained from the
same, lack of adequate critically appraisal and incorporation of prevalently secondary studies
instead of primary ones. However, negligible presence of author’s opinions in the review is a key
strength in terms of lack of bias (Houser, 2018).
Sampling Strategy
The authors have clearly defined recruitment of health practitioners as the sample for the
study, without however, highlighting any specific criteria for exclusion. However, the athors
clearly mentioned a specific inclusion criteria consisting of practitioners exposed and not
exposed to the iCAHE based journal club experience (Lizarondo, Grimmer-Somers & Kumar,
2011). There was clear mention of usage of maximum variation sampling – a relevant sampling
strategy considering that health practitioners’ come from various medical professions (Etikan,
Musa & Alkassim, 2016). While there is no mention on possibilities of bias, it is assumed that
participants were unaffected by the same considering that only those who were interested were
recruited for this study. There was however, no mention on power analysis – but allocating
participants equally across exposed and non-exposed groups can be assumed to mitigate the
same (Houser, 2018). Hence, despite adhering to relevant sampling strategies, there was
inadequate information on several components, which denotes incomprehensiveness (Elfil &
Negida, 2017).
Results
The authors usage of content analysis coupled with inclusion of diagrams were key
strengths since these highlighted sufficient detail of a decision trail as well as relevance as per
qualitative inquiry based research design (Baillie, 2015). Inclusion of themes with anonymized

5EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE
statements of participants were additional strengths since the indicative adequate detail,
description and transferability in terms of results and findings obtained. Provision of an extensive
discussion coupled with references highlighted authors’ exploration of conclusions though there
was no information on evaluating credibility of findings hence highlighting invalidity
(Sandelowski, 2015).
Trustworthiness
Overall, the chosen article can be considered as a trustworthy source of evidence based
qualitative research since the research content, tradition and design of qualitative inquiry is
clearly relevant to the research question, followed by presence of saturation, minimal
possibilities of bias, usage of relevant purposive sampling and provision of descriptive data using
relevant themes. There is however, no information on member checking, prolonged engagement
and triangulation, hence hindering trustworthiness (Houser, 2018).
Evidence based Practice
This article influence evidence based practice by highlighting that presence and
engagement in journal clubs can aid in decision-making, clinical judgements and improvements
in healthcare practice – which are key requisites for successful evidence based nursing
professional practice (Mackey & Bassendowski, 2017). However, considering that interview
methods are subject to biased responses from participants, further research may be needed to
conducted to explore further on the relevance of journal clubs (Noble & Smith, 2015).
Conclusion
It can be concluded that, the article by Lizarondo, Grimmer-Somers and Kumar (2011),
seemed to highlight significant amounts of credibility and trustworthiness as a qualitative study.

6EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE
However, considering that the article had several limitations and incomplete information, further
research is required for incorporation in nursing evidence based practice.
References
Lizarondo, L. M., Grimmer-Somers, K., & Kumar, S. (2011). Exploring the perspectives of
allied health practitioners toward the use of journal clubs as a medium for promoting evidence-
based practice: a qualitative study. BMC medical education, 11(1), 66.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-66.
Houser, J. (2018). Nursing research: Reading, using and creating evidence. Jones & Bartlett
Learning. Retrieved from: https://books.google.co.in/books?
id=qwKxDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=houser+2018+qualitative+results&hl=en&sa=
X&ved=0ahUKEwi89pXToPjhAhVVi3AKHbtpCwMQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Mackey, A., & Bassendowski, S. (2017). The history of evidence-based practice in nursing
education and practice. Journal of Professional Nursing, 33(1), 51-55. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2016.05.009.
Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evidence-
based nursing, 18(2), 34-35. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102054.
Baillie, L. (2015). Promoting and evaluating scientific rigour in qualitative research. Nursing
Standard (2014+), 29(46), 36. doi: 10.7748/ns.29.46.36.e8830.
Sandelowski, M. (2015). A matter of taste: evaluating the quality of qualitative research. Nursing
inquiry, 22(2), 86-94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12080.

7EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and
purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), 1-4. doi:
10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11.
Elfil, M., & Negida, A. (2017). Sampling methods in clinical research; an educational review.
Emergency, 5(1). Retrieved from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325924/pdf/emerg-5-e52.pdf.
Gentles, S. J., Charles, C., Nicholas, D. B., Ploeg, J., & McKibbon, K. A. (2016). Reviewing the
research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of
sampling in qualitative research. Systematic reviews, 5(1), 172. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0343-0.
Roberts, L. D. (2015). Ethical issues in conducting qualitative research in online communities.
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(3), 314-325. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2015.1008909.
Butler, A., Hall, H., & Copnell, B. (2016). A guide to writing a qualitative systematic review
protocol to enhance evidence‐based practice in nursing and health care. Worldviews on
Evidence
‐Based Nursing, 13(3), 241-249. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12134.
Lockwood, C., Munn, Z., & Porritt, K. (2015). Qualitative research synthesis: methodological
guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. International journal of evidence-
based healthcare, 13(3), 179-187. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000062.
Kalb, K. A., O'Conner-Von, S. K., Brockway, C., Rierson, C. L., & Sendelbach, S. (2015).
Evidence-based teaching practice in nursing education: Faculty perspectives and practices.
Nursing Education Perspectives, 36(4), 212-219. doi: 10.5480/14-1472.

8EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE