OCCT2005 Allied Health Research Design Assessment
Order Code: CLT274751
Question Task Id: 0
- Subject Code :
PART A-Critical Review and Questions to Answer
- Critically appraise the two journal articles
Select the appropriate critical review form from CASP (https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/) to critically appraise each of the two articles. Include your completed CASP review forms, with comments written in your own words, as an appendix to your assignment (These will not be included in the page limit for the assignment). Critical appraisal of the articles will help you answer the research questions.
- Answer a series of research related questions
Use the case scenario and critical review of the two journal articles to answer a series of research-specific questions related to (a) each study research question, results interpretation, strengths and limitations of the methodology, and (b) the pillars of evidence-based practice. Questions 1-3 need to be answered separately for each of the journal articles. Question 4 is to be based on the case scenario only (you only answer Question 4 once).
1. Clinical research question
- Identify the study (e.g., clinical) research question to be answered. Use PICO format to help structure your research question. Make sure you write your research question as a complete sentence, with the grammatical structure of a question (and finish with a question mark).
2. Results interpretation
- What are the results? Summarise the key findings accurately and concisely.
- Are the results clinically important or significant? What information did you use to justify this conclusion?
3. Strengths and limitations
- What are the methodological strengths of the study?
- How do these strengths improve the quality of the evidence? (i.e., What does this mean for us as clinicians/health professionals?)
- What are the limitations of the study?
- Identify the threats to the trustworthiness of the study (e.g., internal and external validity and objectivity).
- How do these biases affect the quality of the evidence? (Ask yourself, “How much can you trust the evidence? Are you confident that you can use this evidence for your client?”).
Please note: Do not describe the strengths and limitations of the intervention, you need to critique the study itself.
4. Pillars of evidence-based practice
Using evidence-based practice requires more than just a critique of the scientific evidence. In order to use your clinical/professional reasoning, you also need to consider patient/client values and circumstances and information from the practice context. It is fine to make reasonable and realistic inferences from the information given in the case scenario.
Consider the case scenario and identify factors that contribute to each of the following:
- What are the client’s values and circumstances (e.g., symptoms of condition, immediate support, living circumstances)?
- What information do you know about the practice context (e.g., the clinic if relevant)?
- Once you have identified these factors, justify how each of these factors could be considered an enabler or barrier to your client.
PART B-Clinical Reasoning and Recommendation
- Clinical recommendation
Using the information from Part A, formulate a professionally written response using lay language to the client with your professional recommendation. Ensure that your response includes a rationale for your opinion and that any recommendations you have are justified after considering the case scenario information and reviewing the research evidence. Please note that your clinical recommendation can only be based on the research evidence from the two articles you have reviewed.
Write this response as a verbatim (word-for-word) transcript of what you would say to the client at your next session. This response is a monologue (i.e., one-sided) only and should not include a dual dialogue with the client (i.e., the client does not need to respond). Please use language and terminology appropriate to your client (i.e., the person you will be speaking to in the case scenario). When referring to research evidence, avoid statistical jargon including “statistically significant,” “null hypothesis,” and “p value.” Use terminology that people are likely to understanding such as “improvement”, “difference”, and “chance” or “likelihood.” Please note that colloquial language, slang, and unprofessionalism in your written response is not acceptable in an academic or professional clinical context.