Critique of Tabakakis, McAllister and Bradshaws (2020)

BNHR700articlecritique. Wordlimit:upto2,000(+/-10%exclusiveofthe words already populated into this template and the reference list)

FullAPA(7thedition)referenceofthearticleyouarecritiquingtobe added here:

Tabakakis,C.,McAllister,M.,&Bradshaw,J.(2020).BurnoutinNewZealand Registered Nurses: The Role of Workplace Factors. Kai Tiaki Nursing Research, 11(1), 916.

ForthepurposeofthisassignmentTabakakis,McAllisterandBradshawwill furthermore be referred to as the authors

Elementsinfluencingtherobustnessoftheresearch:

Theresearchquestionand/oraim(s):Yourcritiquewithrationale

AccordingtoCouglanetal.(2007),theaimofaresearcharticleshouldbroadly indicate to the reader what is to be studied. Cronin et al. (2014) state that the aim must bespecific and concise. In theliteratureabove, the authors state in the abstract that the aim is to investigate the impact of workplace factors on burnout in New Zealand registerednurses.Thisindicatestothereaderwhatwillberesearchedinthearticle. Theaimisalsoclearandconcise.Theauthoraimintheirresearcharticleisastrength adding to the robustness of the article.

Literaturereview:Yourcritiquewithrationale

A literature review provides an overview of information relating to a topic and informs the reader of literature relating to the topic. This provides the reader with a background understanding of the topic (Cronin et al. 2008; Usher et al. 2019). The reviewshouldalsoutiliseavarietyofsources.Theauthorsusefifteensourcesfortheir review, with four of these being from the last five years, with six being New Zealand (NZ) based. The authors give an overview of relevant literature and highlight the commonthemesoftherebeing arangeofworkplacestressorsforNZregistered nurses

(RNs).Thisprovidesthereaderwithabackgroundunderstandingofthetopic,which is a strength of the article.

Thepurposeofaliteraturereviewcanbetojustifytheneedforfurtherresearch in the area by identifying gaps and highlighting similarities and inconsistencies between current works (Cronin et al. 2008; Usher et al. 2019). The authors highlight thatthereisalargeamountofresearchrelatingtostress,burnoutandretainingnursing staff. However, there is an absence of data discussing the relationship between the practice environment and negative acts in the workplace, to burnout in New Zealand nurses. The authors clearly highlight that there is a gap in research, and target their study to fill this gap, which is a strength of the article.

Cronin et al. (2014) state that usually publications being reviewed should be recent, ideally within the last five to ten years. However, there are exceptions to this, such as historical or seminal data, as these can be used to provide context. The authors utilise seminal data, such as one from 1987 and historical data such as from 1996 to providecontext.Theycompareittocurrentdataintheirreview,addingtothestrengths ofthearticle.

Designandmethods:Yourcritiquewithrationale

Study design

According to Schira (2009), quantitative studies use study designs which provide measurable data which can be converted into statistics. Essentially, quantitativestudiesresultinnumericaldata.Theauthorsuseadescriptivequantitative method, which according to Couglan et al. (2007), is non-experimental, and can be used to measure the relationship between two variables. This provides tentative explanations, or potential hypothesis forfuture research. Theauthors usea correlative approach to relate the variables of workplace factors and burnout to each other. The authorsexplaintherelationship,ofincreased exposuretonegative actsin the

workplace,resultinginincreasedRNburnout.Thestudydesignisastrength,adding to the articles robustness.

Sampling

Schira (2009) states that the number of research subjects who participated should be clearly stated in the article. The article should also state specific inclusion criteria. The authors clearly state that they used random selection to choose five thousand participants from the New Zealand Nurses Organisation (NZNO) data base. This is clearly stating their inclusion criteria of being an NZNO member. The authors clearly state that they chose this criteria as the NZNO has a similar demographic profiletotheNZnursingworkforce.Thesamplingmethodusedisastrengthaddingto the robustness of the article.

Datacollection

Couglan et al. (2007) identify several strategies which can be used to collect data in quantitative research, with questionnaires being themost common. Ellis (2010) highlightsthatsurveysarecross-sectional,meaningthattheyidentifytheprevalenceof a variable amongst a group of individuals. The authors used a correlational survey which according to Ellis (2010) looks for associations between two variables. The authorsusedacrosssectionalsurveyofrandomlyselectednursesfromtheNZNOdata base. The authors sent out a SurveyMonkey link to participants for an online anonymous questionnaire asking them to participate. The survey related the role of workplace factors on RN burn out. This data collection method is clearly specified. As questionnaires are the most common form of data collection in quantitative research, theyareproventobean appropriatemethod,thatfitsthedesign.Thescalesusedinthe survey, were that had been previously used and validated, such as the Practice

EnvironmentScaleofTheNursingWorkIndex(PESNWI).Therefore,the data

collectionmethodologyis astrength ofthearticle.

Dataanalysis

According to Schira (2009), data obtained should be analysed using statistics andtests.Lacey(2015)statesthatcomputerprogramscanbeusedtomanagethedata in an easier manner. The authors analysed their data with descriptive statistics and correlations. They used computer software from Enova to aid them in managing this data. This is a strength adding to the robustness of the article.

According to Couglan et al. (2007) statistical significance should be used to determine validity of results and determine the likelihood that the results were from chance.Thelowestlevelofsignificanceisp?0.05,meaningthattheprobabilityofthe results being due to chance is 0.5%. The authors identified that in their results, the probability of these being due to chance varied, but remained less than 0.05. This means that the data is significant, which is a strength of the article.

Ethics

Couglan et al. (2007) identify four ethical research principles. Autonomy, non- maleficence, beneficence, and justice. They also state that the anonymity of the participants need to berespected. Participants weresent an email which provided them with information about the study, contact details for theresearch team, and a link to an anonymousonlinequestionnaire.Autonomywasenabledasparticipantshadtheability to make an informed choice to participate. Non-maleficence was upheld as the authors had no intention of harming participants. Beneficence was upheld as the authors believe the research findings can be used to improve nurse workplace experience. The anonymity of participants was protected as the survey link was anonymous, which is a strength.Theseareall strengths of thearticle.

Justice was generally upheld as all participants were randomised and received the same questionnaire, meaning that they were treated equally however the questionnaire was only provided in English, meaning that nurses in New Zealand who do not speak English as their primary language may have been at a disadvantage to participate.TheauthorsstatedthattheywereadvisedbyM?oristakeholderstoprovide the questionnaire and interview material in Te Reo however, this wasnt done, due to budget constraints. This potential participation disadvantage was a weakness to the research and therefore the article.

The use of a research ethics committee (REC) is a mandatory part of the research process (Cronin et al. 2014). The authors gained ethical approval from the Central Queensland University Human REC. They received advice that they did not needethicalapprovalfromaNewZealandbasedcommittee,whichwasbackedupby theNZNO. TheREC gavefull approval,which isa strengthof theresearch.

Rigour:Yourcritiquewithrationale

Dwyer et al. (2013) define rigour as the quality of the research. They state that this is described by the validity and reliability of results. Couglan et al (2007); and Dwyeretal.(2013)agreethatvalidityisdeterminedbytheabilityoftheinstrumentsto measure. The tool used by the authors, was a survey. The authors used pre-established self-assessment scales, including the PESNWI. This scale has been revised and validated with the Australian Nursing Workforcein otherstudies. This aids theauthors in being able to generalise the findings to represent the nursing population in New Zealand. The validation of this tool, is a strength, adding to the robustness of thearticle.

Reliabilityistheaccuracyofthesurveyandreproducibility(Couglanetal.,2007;Dwyeretal.,2013). Itreferstotheinstrumentsabilitytomeasurethe concept

being studied consistently and accurately. One of the instruments used was the CopenhagenBurnoutInventory(CBI).Whilethiswasthefirststudytousethis instrumentonNZRNs,theCBIhasbeenusedoverseasandproventobereliable.The authors using a preestablished instrument, known to be reliable, is a strength of the article.

According to Dwyer et al. (2013), generalisability is an important factor in rigour. Couglan et al. (2007) state that the percentage of a sample who participate in a study is significant in the generalisability of the results. At least 50% of a sample size should participate in order to avoid a response bias. The authors asked five thousand RNs to participate, and only four hundred and eighty completed all questionnaire scales.Whenaccountingforinactiveemails,theauthorsstatedthatthiswasaresponse rate of just over 11%. Due to the potential response bias, the generalisability of the studyisimpacted, whichis aweakness ofthearticle.

Findings:Yourcritiquewithrationale

The findings of a research article tell the reader what was discovered by the researcher as a result of their study (Schira, 2009). All results that address the research problemshouldbeincluded.Couglanetal.(2007)statethatresultsshouldbepresented inawaywhich clearlyanswerstheresearchquestions,suchastablestosummariseand enhance presentation of results. The authors clearly discuss their findings of relating workplace factors to burnout in NZ RNs. They summarise relevant information, utilising a results section. They also summarise their finding amongst five tables,which improves readability, clarity and presentation. The authors state the averages of each variable. The authors findings also clearly answer the research questions. These factors work together to strengthen the findings section contributing to the robustness ofthearticle.

Discussion:Yourcritiquewithrationale

Coughlan et al. (2007) state that the discussion should relate back to the literature review and help to place the study in context. Fawcet & Garity (2009) state that results may be summarised for clarity and may be compared to previous research. In their discussion, the authors briefly summarise their findings which provides clarity tothereader.Theauthorscomparetheirfindingstopreviousresearch,highlightingthe similarities and differences, thus linking them. The authors also explain contextual factorsastowhythesedifferencesmayoccur,addingfurthercontextandevaluationof theirfindings. Thisis astrongdiscussion, addingto the robustnessof the article.

Limitations:Yourcritiquewithrationale

Cronin et al. (2008) express that its important for researchers to be able to identify limitations in their work, as it increases the trustworthiness and robustness of the study. Schira (2009) state that limitations of the study should be identified as it providesinformationforfutureresearchers.Oneofthelimitationstheauthorsidentify isthelowresponserate.Theauthorsrecognisethatmaymeanlessgeneralisabilityfor their research. They suggested that future researchers should utilise a shorter questionnaire to increase responses. By reflecting on the limitations of the article, the authorsstrengthenthe article, whichaddstoits robustness.

Recommendations:Yourcritiquewithrationale

Couglan et al. (2007), claim that recommendations for change in practice should be given with caution and will depend on the nature or purpose of the study. Recommendations for future research in that area should also be made. The authors recommendthatworkplace-basedstrategiesareimplementedinpractice,suchassafe- staffing, and employing anti-bullying initiatives into workplaces. They also suggest a change in nursing education to include more simulation experience where multiple stressesareoccurring.Theauthorssuggestfutureresearch toexaminethe impact of

thesestrategiesin preventingburn outinNZRNs.Therecommendationssection is thoroughand relevant, whichis astrengthof thearticle.

References

Coughlan,M.,Cronin,P., &Ryan,F. (2007).Stepbystep guidetocritiquing research.

Part1:Quantitativeresearch.BritishJournalofNursing,16(11),658-663. https://doi-org.libproxy.ara.ac.nz/10.12968/bjon.2007.16.11.23681

CroninP,RyanF,&CoughlanM.(2008).Undertakingaliteraturereview:astep-by- step approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17(1), 3843. https://doi- org.libproxy.ara.ac.nz/10.12968/bjon.2008.17.1.28059

Cronin,P.,Coughlan,M.,&Smith,V.(2014).Understandingnursingandhealthcare research. SAGE Publications.

Dwyer,T.,Moxham,L.,Reid-Searl,K,&Broadbent,M.(2013).Heathstudent's research survival guide.Pearson Education Australia

Ellis,P.(2010).Understandingresearchfor nursingstudents.SAGE Publications.

Fawcett,J.,&Garity,J.(2009).Evaluatingresearchforevidencebasednursing practice. F. A. Davis

Lacey,A.(2015)TheResearchProcess.InGerrish,K.,&Lathlean,J.(Eds.).The research process in nursing. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Schira,M.,(2009)Appraisingasingleresearcharticle.InMateo,M.,&Kirchoff,K. (Eds.). Research for advanced practice nurses from evidence to practice.

SpringerPublishingCompany

Usher, K., Aveyard, H. Jackson, D., Woods, C. (2019). Conducting and Writing a literaturereview.InBorbasi,S.(Eds.).NavigatingtheMazeofResearch(5th Edition). Elsevier Australia.