Evidence based practice (EBP) is at the center of healthcare delivery. Today, more and more providers are recognizing the need to ensure that their services are the result of rigorous scientific research. Unfortunately, there are some institutions which continue to grapple with challenges in their attempts to adopt EBP. These challenges have prompted researchers to conduct studies with the goal of establishing the best strategies for implementing EBP. Mollon et al. (2012) are among these scholars. A critical review of the study that they carried out shows that for the most part, this study satisfies the stringent criteria that Houser (2018) established.
Credibility
Credibility is among the metrics against which the quality of research studies should be assessed. According to Houser (2018), a study’s credibility is determined largely by the researcher’s background. To be considered credible, the study must have been conducted by researchers with vast clinical and educational experience and if there is any conflict of interest, the researchers must declare it. Houser (2018) stipulates further that credible studies should be published in unbiased journals and should undergo rigorous peer review. Furthermore, according to Houser (2018) having been published recently makes a study credible. The study by Mollon et al. (2012) satisfies all of these requirements. For instance, Mollon and her colleagues have extensive healthcare and educational experience. Mollon is a nurse manager while one of the researchers with whom she collaborated, Dr. Gallo is in charge of nursing education and development. Having been published in 2012, the article by Mollon and her team is relevant and therefore credible. Moreover, in the text, the researchers make it clear that there is no conflict of interest. Their article appears in the Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, a peer-reviewed publication focusing on a variety of issues in nursing. Overall, the article is highly credible.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Problem Statement and Research Design
Apart from highlighting the importance of credibility, Houser (2018) also advises researchers to develop clear problem statements and research designs that are aligned with their objectives. The main requirements that Houser (2018) imposes on problem statements include having a narrow and specific focus, being clearly articulated and being significant to practice. A review of the article by Mollon et al. (2012) shows that it satisfies these standards. For instance, in articulating their problem statement, Mollon and her team begin by recognizing the value of EBP and proceeding to lament that many practitioners lack the skills and competencies needed to successfully adopt EBP. Additionally, Mollon et al. (2012) shed light on the importance of their study by noting that when nurses have the needed skills and knowledge, they are able to deliver safe, high quality and evidence-based care. Therefore, their problem statement is significant, clearly defined and well-articulated.
Houser (2018) also sheds light on the features of properly selected research designs. According to this scholar, researchers should clearly define their design, provide a rationale for its selection, clearly identify all variables and describe the design in adequate detail. Mollon et al. (2012) fulfill some of these requirements. They clearly identify their research design as a descriptive pre and postsurvey design. Additionally, they note that the design is concerned with a number of variables which include the attitudes, knowledge and practice of clinical staff. While they identify the variables, Mollon et al. (2012) do not explicitly specify the dependent and independent variables. Despite this failure, from the tremendous amount of background information that they provide, it is fairly easy to identify the different types of variables. Another failure that these researchers commit is that they offer no rationale for their choice of research design.
Ethical Issues
When she developed her criteria for evaluating research, Houser (2018) must have understood that ethical issues must be considered. He reminds researchers to ensure that they respect ethical standards. Among other requirements, Houser (2018) challenges researchers to obtain approval from institutional review boards (IRB), spare no expense in insulating participants against harm, obtain informed consent from the participants, take extra steps to protect vulnerable participants, and ensure the anonymity, privacy and confidentiality of subjects. Furthermore, Houser (2018) notes that researchers should be evaluated based on how well they offer full disclosure to study subjects and guaranteeing that their studies present more benefit than risks. It appears that Mollon et al. (2012) fully understood and agreed with the requirements that Houser (2018) stipulated. In their article, they state that they sought approval from the IRB and the administrative review committee. Moreover, they provided all interested participants with consent letters and allowed the participants to refuse to take part if they felt that their confidentiality was not secured. The researchers also visited the participants to share details about the study. Given the numerous steps that Mollon et al. (2012) took, there is no doubt that they satisfy all the requirements that Houser (2018) set out. Apart from obtaining informed consent, they also protected the confidentiality of all participants. More importantly, since the study could inform the adoption of EBP, it is undoubtedly beneficial with minimal risk.
Purpose Statement
In addition to the elements discussed above, Houser (2018) also highlights the criteria that purpose statements should fulfill. While the conditions in the criteria are rather simple, they help to clarify the goals that the researchers hoped to accomplish. Houser (2018) contends that purpose statements should be clearly indicated, easy to find, is devoid of bias in the choice of verbs, and clearly describes the variables, design and the population. Mollon et al. (2012) met nearly all of these conditions. Their purpose statement reads to “evaluated the effect of an online educational program on the practice, attitudes, and knowledge/skills related to evidence- based practice among multidisciplinary health care providers” (p. 412). Appearing in the introduction of the article, this statement is easy to find. Moreover, it makes clear that the study’s population is multidisciplinary health care providers and that attitudes, skills and attitudes are among the variables of interest. By including the term “evaluate”, the statement allows readers to understand that Mollon et al. (2012) set out to establish the effectiveness of the intervention. Unfortunately, these researchers do not indicate that study design in the purpose statement.
Literature Review
Literature review is yet another component that Houser (2018) addresses. Some of the requirements that the literature review needs to satisfy is being limited to publications released within the last five years, having a clear connection between the literature and research problem, the presence of a theoretical framework and objective scrutiny of the literature. Houser (2018) also demands that researchers should rely mostly on primary sources and that they be unbiased in the conclusions that they draw. Mollon and her team appear to have been led by these standards. In addition to limiting their review to articles that detail primary research, they also provide a theoretical framework in which they identify the particular theories that relate to their research. Adult learning and diffusion of innovation are among these theories. All the articles that Mollon et al. (2012) review are related to their research question. For example, some of these articles address the role that knowledge and skills play in shaping the adoption of EBP. The fact that Mollon et al. (2012) include citations for the different articles in their text makes it easy for readers to verify the conclusions and claims that they present. Therefore, the literature review is fully in line with Houser’s criteria.
Sampling Strategy
Sampling is among the processes that influence research quality. In recognition of the importance of sampling, Houser (2018) outlined standards and requirements that sampling strategies need to satisfy. Among the requirements include objective identification of target population, clear and relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria, detailed sampling procedure, and identification and elimination of sampling bias. Additionally, according to Houser (2018), the sampling strategy should ensure that the sample size is adequate and that power analysis should be conducted. The strategy that Mollon et al. (2012) adopted fails to meet some of these conditions. These researchers employed a variety of techniques to recruit the participants. The techniques included posting flyers and holding staff meetings. Through these techniques, Mollon et al. (2012) managed to identify over 1,300 eligible participants. Those who were not involved in the delivery of direct care and nonprofessional clinical staff were excluded from the study. Mollon et al. do not outline the inclusion criteria or state the steps they took to minimize bias. Their description of the sampling procedure is rather scant.
Measurement Strategy and Validity
How researchers analyze their data plays an essential role in determining the quality of their studies. The importance of data analysis must have inspired Houser (2018) to develop the criteria for evaluating the measurement strategy and validity. As part of this criterion, Houser (2018) reminds researchers to use instruments which are clearly connected to the key concepts of their study and to establish the validity of these instruments by providing statistics. Houser (2018) also urges researchers to offer a detailed description of how they used the instrument. Mollon et al. (2012) used the Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ) as their primary instrument. In addition to clearly identifying this instrument, they cite research which confirms the validity and practical usefulness of the EBPQ. For instance, they note that a study calculated the internal validity of the EBPQ at 0.87. In summary, Mollon et al. (2012) properly identify and adequately justify the instrument they used.
Implications for EBP
All the elements discussed this far are crucial. However, if a study does not present any implications for practice, even if conducted properly, none of the elements are of much use. The study that Mollon et al. (2012) conducted is indeed significant as it offers implications for EBP. The main conclusion that they made from the study is that the self-learning online tool that they evaluated does not necessarily help to build the skills, knowledge and attitudes of clinical personnel. This conclusion is important as it shows that online learning that is self-directed would not help providers to successfully implement EBP. Therefore, the providers should use other interventions whose effectiveness has been established.
In conclusion, research continues to serve a vital function in healthcare delivery. Studies focusing on EBP are particularly important as they underscore the value of evidence. However, for the studies to be useful, they need to be conducted in ways that fulfill established criteria. Mollon et al. (2012) are among the researchers who recognize the need to satisfy the requirements such as those recommended by Houser. By satisfying these conditions, these researchers inject credibility, relevance and validity into their study. Other researchers should incorporate the Houser criteria into their study if they are to have a real impact on healthcare practice.
References
Houser, J. (2018). Nursing research: Readings, using & creating evidence (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Mollon, D., Fields, W., Gallo, A.-M., Wagener, R., Soucy, J., Gustafson, B., & Kim, S. C. (2012). Staff practice, attitudes, and knowledge/skills regarding evidence-based practice before and after an educational intervention. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 43(9), 411–419. doi:10.3928/00220124-20120716-89
