Globalization and Global Inequality: Critical Appraisal of a Nursing - Essay Example

GLOBALISATION AND GLOBAL INEQUALITY Introduction Various research activities are increasingly and continuously being carried out in different fields. Johnson & Christensen (2008) explains that these programs are aimed at investigating some of the problems and challenges faced by people in their social and economic processes, and making the right recommendations that can be implemented to provide viable solutions. The human physical and non-physical environment keeps changing on daily basis, something that requires regular research in keeping abreast with these changes. Inasmuch as many research activities are being carried, it is important that there be an effective system by which these researches can be appraised to determine their validity and reliability. Wood (2010) explain that reliable research studies provide quality information that can be used in making changes that can cause better and effective systems and human environment. One of the ways of making such a process is conducting a critical appraisal process; critical appraisal can be defined as the process involving careful and systematic examination of research for judging its trustworthiness, relevance and value for their particular contexts. According to White (2008) critical appraisal is very important especially for health professionals, considering the fact that they handle critical matters of human life. Many of the research studies that are carried out on human and animal health are often treated with great esteem considering the changing health problems and challenges in the human environment (Pignone 2005, p. 67). According to Armstrong (2012) an effective healthcare process can only be managed by an application of effective and reliable strategies derived from research studies, which underpins the need for their critical appraisal. This paper examines a critical appraisal for a research that was conducted on the participation of patients in the NHS Bowel Cancer screening programs. The critical appraisal of this research process will undertake the qualitative approach, examining the methodology that was used and its effectiveness (Wake 2013, p. 31). In this case, it will be possible to assess the effectiveness of the research process. According to McCabe (2009) qualitative research processes are known to use approaches that deliver quality information from resource persons, most of whom are carefully selected for the research process. The process of critical appraisal aims at assisting people to develop necessary skills that can help to make sense of various scientific evidences. This process has seen the development of effective checklists that cover validity, results as well as relevance. Screening questions It is important to realise that in any research process, the research questions that are developed apply to different study designs. Additionally, according to Palmer et al, (2014), the design of the questions depends on the objectives that are set for the research process itself. This means that critical appraisal process varies from one research study to another. In this research, the researchers set to find out peoples participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer screening programs. The research process realized that bowel cancer screening using the famous guaiac faecal occult blood test that was made available by NHS in its Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) was only being taken by about 54% of all the qualified population (Palmer et al, 2014, p. 1707). According to Palmer et al, (2014), uptake of the screening program ranges from about 35% in the uppermost to around 61% in the areas that are least deprived. This study has deeply explored some of the reasons that have been proposed for the non-uptake of the bowel cancer screening process as well as examining the possible reasons for the subsequent uptake among those participants that had initially not shown interest in participating in the screening process (Palmer et al, 2014, p. 1706). The authors of this research report found this subject important following the increased cases of bowel cancer among the population. The increasing concerns have been causing a rise in the budget for screening processes as well as intervention mechanisms in ensuring that people were treated from this disease. The need for the screening process has been considered an effective approach in ensuring that bowel cancer cases are identified in good time and managed to help people diagnosed with the process to heal (Bang 2010, p. 83). The literature review process is very comprehensive, using studies that are current, thus making the research process effective in addressing the problem of bowel cancer screening. Aims of the study The main aim of this study was to encourage people to undertake bowel cancer screening in a process that would reduce deaths associated with diseases through taking medical interventions in good time. For several years, participation in these screening programs have often been avoided by a section of people, who often find it uncalled for. Instead, they prefer visiting health centres in order to undertake the medical screening exercise; as a result, many deaths have been reported from people that failed to take early medical interventions like screening. The researchers have made clear their aims and objectives in this research, which can easily be got from the introduction (Staton 2006, p. 67). According to the authors, the main aim of the research was to establish the number of people that were undertaking the bowel cancer screening process so that recommendations would be made on how to address the shortfall in the process (Dasgupta & Kirby 2011, p. 98). Additionally, the research aimed at finding out the reasons for the low uptake of the screening programs among various groups of people. Methodology The authors of this research process have indicated their methodology, in which they gave bias to qualitative research methodology. In this case, they used the qualitative process because it was effective in analyzing the responses of people that were facing the particular challenge. In addition, the responses from these actual respondents would be helpful in enabling the researchers to make meaningful recommendations into the screening process. In reference to Brace (2008) the qualitative approach was very effective for this research because it enabled the researched to get first hand information from the focus groups and resource persons that were being interviewed. Birn (2004) posits that the qualitative interview process is known for allowing researchers to seek clarity from respondents, this is evident in the case of focus groups, where a researcher moderates a discussion that examines issues in line with the set objectives (Timmermann 2012., p. 105). This is in contrast to the quantitative approach, which often has recorded evidence that remains static for a long time. Additionally, qualitative research methodology is effective where diverse information may be needed as opposed to quantitative approaches where new information that may have taken place recently may be hard to document. This is the reason why qualitative research is preferred by most researchers because it gives current trends in different research aspects. Research Design The research design for this research process was carefully chosen, following the decision to apply the qualitative methodology. According to Denzin (2005) the appropriateness of the research design in this research can be illustrated in the by the need to take a descriptive approach, whereby the research process would investigate the factors that cause people to take the screening process or fail to take it. In this regard, it is important to point out that the research design would meet the research’s set goals and objectives in the most effective way. The authors of the research process have not explained the factors that motivated them t take the research design; however, it is clear that following the choice of the qualitative approach, this research design would fit in well. This indicates that this research process would not have been very effective had they settled on a different research approach. In many instances, qualitative research methodologies are effectively implemented with research designs that allow researchers enough time to explore into the many issues that cut across the process of achieving their objectives. Recruitment of subject/sample size In this research activity, the qualitative research technique demanded the use of resource persons in special samples that were carefully selected. The authors have provided the criteria that was used in selecting the sample for the research; they explain that the BCSP process was to be given out to five regional centers in the UK, the process of getting the best sample sizes was done using the Index of Material Deprivation (IMD2010) score in identifying areas that had embodied the prevalence of the IMD scores. The application of this index would cause the selection of the right sample sizes in all the socio-economical areas. The sample size picked, according to researchers was the most appropriate for the study, this is because; it had an equal representation from the areas that had a high and a low deprivation. According to McQuarrie (2012) it is important to realise that focus groups represent a certain value in the process of exploring reason that make people choose them. The selected respondents were placed in each of the sixteen focus groups. One of the advantages of using focus groups is that they often tend to benefit from the fact that they are organized on their members’ homogeneity (McGeary 2004, p. 67). In case of a need, the researchers included inclusion criteria, which was to use the same approach that had been taken in selecting the respondents to the focus groups. Reflexivity According to the researchers, the researchers were carefully selected in a way that gave priority to their socioeconomic status. According to Greene ( 2009), this means that respondents that had similar socioeconomic background were pulled together for the sake of getting the right information concerning their participation in the screening programs. Additionally, due to the sensitivity of the research process itself, the researchers had to set aside separate focus groups for men and women respondents, this was very important because these groups would provide information that was exclusive to them. The use of the qualitative approaches and carefully selected samples meant that all forms of biasness was avoided in the data collection process. There was equal representation by the respondents in terms of gender and socioeconomic background, which was necessary for the success of the research process. Therefore, the authors were categorical enough in their search for data, something that informed the need for using an effective and reliable tool for collecting and managing the samples chosen. Data analysis The data collected was carefully analysed using techniques that originated from ground themes to ground theories from the collected data. Ground theory is used in describing an inductive approach to the analysis where data is used in generating and deriving theory, this is separate from the deductive approach where data is often generated for purposes of testing an already pre-existing theory (Peat & Barton 2005, p. 45). Using the close-reading approach as well as constant data comparison, two of the researchers descriptively did the coding of the data that was being generated. After this process, the data that had been coded was put into special categories of their thematic relevance in respect to the set research goals and objectives (Ketchen 2004, p. 65). Using this process that was highly iterative and accompanied by much writing and discussion, major themes were established and specially refined with links drawn among all of them (LaFleur 2007, p. 43; Fidler 2001, p. 275). The researchers did a comparative analysis for determining whether the themes that were deemed certain to participants of professional and non-professional background could be easily identified. Therefore, just as in the case of Mcnamee (2001), the authors used the qualitative process just like in the collection process, because of its ability to produce first hand information needed for the success of the research. Findings The authors of this journal have explained about the findings of this research process, talking time to make explain the meaning and relevance of their findings. These findings have been deeply explained in relation to the researchers’ questions, addressing the main aims objectives of the research. The researchers have explained their findings in relation to the different group of respondents and how they provided their responses to the discussions that were set. Additionally, they have given recommendations that can be implemented in increasing the number of people that are responding for the screening process. They explain that an increase in the number of people taking up the process from their homes will be vital in reducing the prevalence of this disease, which is fast become a major concern among many groups of people. Conclusion In conclusion, this research will go a long way in influencing the clinical practice involving the screening process for bowel cancer. Besides the UK, many countries are struggling with the bowel cancer disease, which is claiming many people. Despite these concerns, many people are still not taking up the screening process for early diagnosis and treatment. It is believed that a lot of public education is needed in enabling people to adopt this process as essential for their health. Therefore, this research is very valuable in giving information about people’s perceptions and rates of uptake of these screening programs. The findings from the research are adding to the ever-increasing literature about the success of the screening process among people of different backgrounds (Creswell 2003, p. 76). The findings in this research apply to the entire population represented by the samples, which means that carefully applying the samples, the country can effectively get rid of this disease. Bibliography Armstrong, N. 2012. The sociology of medical screening critical perspectives, new directions (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex, U.K. Bang, H. 2010. Statistical methods in molecular biology. Humana Press, New York. Birn, R. 2004. The effective use of market research how to drive and focus better business decisions (4th ed.). Kogan Page, London. Brace, I. 2008. Questionnaire design how to plan, structure and write survey material for effective market research (2nd ed.). Kogan Page, London. Creswell, J. 2003. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif. Dasgupta, P., & Kirby, R. 2011. ABC of Prostate Cancer. John Wiley & Sons. Hoboken. Denzin, N. 2005. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Fidler, J. 2001. Advanced Imaging Technology for Future Cancer Screening. Cancer Screening, Vol 2, no. 3, 271-283. Greene, J. 2009. Atlantic history a critical appraisal. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. 2008. Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Los Angeles. Ketchen, D. 2004. Research methodology in strategy and management. Elsevier, Amsterdam. LaFleur, W. 2007. Dark medicine rationalizing unethical medical research. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN. McCabe, A. 2009. Advances in language and education. Continuum, London. McGeary, M. 2004. Strategies to leverage research funding guiding DODs peer reviewed medical research programs. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Mcnamee, M. 2001. Screening for Lung Cancer. Cancer Screening, Vol 23, no. 12, 195-207. McQuarrie, E. 2012. The market research toolbox: A concise guide for beginners (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif. Palmer, C K, Thomas M C, Wagner, C & Raine R. 2014. Reasons for non-uptake and subsequent participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: a qualitative study. British Journal of Cancer 1705–1711 | doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.125. Peat, J., & Barton, B. 2005. Medical statistics a guide to data analysis and critical appraisal. Blackwell Pub, Malden, Mass Pignone, M. 2005. Economic models of colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults workshop summary. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Staton, C. 2006. Angiogenesis assays: A critical appraisal of current techniques J. Wiley & Sons, . Chichester, England. Timmermann, C. 2012. Cancer patients, cancer pathways historical and sociological perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Wake, L. 2013. The clinical effectiveness of neurolinguistic programming: A critical appraisal. Routledge, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon. White, D. 2008. Bookchin a critical appraisal. Pluto Press, London. Wood, G. 2010. Nursing research: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice (7th ed.). Mosby, St. Louis, Mo. Read More