Quantitative Research Critique Discussion

Use the biomedical library CINAHL Database to locate a single-study, peer-reviewed, quantitative research article. (An article other than a quantitative research article cannot be accepted). This article must be current (published within the last 5 years).  The article should be from a nursing journal or have a nurse author.  It may be an interdisciplinary study with at least one author from nursing.  If you need help with your search, feel free to contact the biomedical librarian via phone, email, or online chat. Quantitative Research Critique Discussion

ORDER  HERE A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Using the assignment instructions, the rubric, and your textbook to complete a quantitative critique of the chosen article.  This paper requires an APA Title Page and a Reference page.

Use Chapters 8 and 14 for more information/insight regarding this assignment.  Other chapters on data analysis (Chapter 13) and sampling (Population Management Chapter 10) are also helpful.

Utilize APA headings that match the different sections of the assignment rubric exactly. Do not combine headings or alter them.  Typically, this paper only requires Level 1 headings (APA Manual 7th edition, p. 47-49).

The body of your paper should be a minimum of 3 pages and a maximum of 5 pages double spaced (do not include title or reference page in page count).  Quantitative Research Critique Discussion

Upload the article you evaluate to the assignment space as well as your paper.  Upload the quantitative article and your critique at the same time.

Begin this critique with:

An APA formatted title page: Make sure your fonts for the title page, headers, and page numbers are the same as the body of the paper. [Except: Level 1 headers including the heading on the reference page, the title of the paper, and the title on the title page are in bold font).

The title of your paper. Quantitative Research Critique Discussion

1. A brief introduction by you that concludes with a purpose or thesis statement: your purpose in writing the paper.

Numbers 1-13 below refer to the sections of the rubric which you use to appraise your article.

1. Purpose: Describe the authors’ purpose in conducting the research.  Include how it either does or does not clearly and effectively present the importance of the need to complete a study on the topic. (Chapter 14, p. 331).
2. Literature Review:  Describe how the literature review focuses on the problem or purpose presented. How does it provide clarity about what has been done and what is needed?  Is the literature review current meaning have the studies cited been published within the last 5 years?  Quantitative Research Critique Discussion
3. Hypothesis/research question:  What was the hypothesis or research question?  Describe how it relates to the purpose of the study. What aspects of PICOT (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, time) did the hypothesis or research question include? (Chapter 14, p. 333).
4. Study Variables:  Independent variables: what is the treatment that is given to some subjects and not to others? List and define each.  Dependent variables: What is being measured? What outcomes are believed to result from the independent variable. List and define each. (Chapter 13, p. 314 Inferential Statistics/variables; Chapter 8 p. 178 [variables]). Include other study variables: extraneous variables and/or patient characteristics. (Chapter 6, p. 136).
5. Setting/Sample:  Setting for the research:  acute care hospital; geographic location, etc.  What was the sample selection method (convenience, purposive, random)? Sample: What were inclusion/exclusion criteria: characteristics of subjects (age, gender, illness/medical condition, etc.)? (Chapter 10).
6. Methods/Design:  What was the study design (Examples: experimental, quasi-experimental, descriptive, correlational, exploratory, double-blind randomized clinical trial)? (Chapter 8) Describe the assignment of subjects to control and experimental groups.
7. Measurement/Instrumentation:  How is dependent variable being measured (questionnaires; bio-instrumentation, laboratory values, etc.)? Discuss reliability/consistency and validity/accuracy of each. Do authors discuss reliability and validity of instruments, questionnaires, etc? If not, just state that they did not address these items.
8. Procedures for the study:  How were subjects identified and recruited?  Data Collection:  Describe how the intervention or independent variable was delivered, manipulated, or controlled (length and frequency of intervention, dose of intervention, etc). How are data/dependent measures collected (mailed, interviews etc.)? Who collected the data?  What efforts were made to maintain anonymity? Quantitative Research Critique Discussion
9. Data Analysis:  Are the statistics explained in plain language? Describe methods for data entry, data management, and data analysis. Identify use of software, if used.  What statistical tests were used (Chi-square, t-test, one-way ANOVA, two-way ANOVA, etc.)? What, if any,  significance level did the authors provide? (Chapter 13).
10. Results: Describe how the data were reported (tables, narratively, etc.).  Were the findings described in clear/plain language for ease for ease of comprehension?
11. Limitations:  Did investigators discuss the study limitations – summarize those here or if not addressed, just report that limitations were not addressed in this study.
12. Conclusions, implications, recommendations:  What was learned from the study? How is that applicable to practice?  Any recommendations for future research?
13. Level of Evidence: State the level of evidence of this study based on study design: See figure 2.4 on page 51 of 6th edition textbook.
14. Write a two- to six-sentence conclusion at the end of the paper briefly summing up what you have written.  No new material is introduced.

Reference Page: Include a Reference page including an APA formatted reference for the article you critiqued as well as sources you utilized to perform your critique (textbook, other articles). Quantitative Research Critique Discussion

Conducting scholarly research demands that the investigators follow certain traditional procedures and norms regarding methodology, sampling, data analysis, results interpretation, and results presentation. These parameters vary depending on whether the research effort is quantitative or qualitative (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In appreciation of the fact that any research will have inherent limitations and weaknesses, scholarly practice is often to critique them; pointing out where their strengths and weaknesses lie with regard to the sampling technique used, the methodology employed, data analysis done, and other parameters (Gray & Grove, 2020). It is in this light that this paper presents a critique of the quantitative research article by Skelton et al. (2022) on perceptions, practices, knowledge, influences, and motivations concerning cannabis use among women of reproductive age.  Quantitative Research Critique Discussion

Purpose of the Study by Skelton et al. (2022)

The purpose of the authors of the research investigation by Skelton et al. (2022) was to determine the extent of the available evidence regarding the motivations behind the use of cannabis by women of reproductive age. The investigators also sought to determine the knowledge and perceptions these women have about the use of cannabis. Also, they wanted to know what influences them to use cannabis as well as what practice of cannabis use they normally engage in. It would indeed be admissible that this kind of research on cannabis use by females of reproductive age was long overdue. This is because cannabis as an addictive drug/ substance would have serious consequences on the mental health of a woman during the peripartum period (CDC, 2020; Vanstone et al., 2021). Apart from having negative effects on the fetus, its use would also predispose the mother to mental illness such as psychosis especially in the post-partum period. Quantitative Research Critique Discussion

Studies indicate that smoking cannabis during pregnancy may be associated with attention, memory, problem-solving, and behavioral issues in the offspring, even though researchers remain uncertain about the effects of cannabis on children’s developing brains (CDC, 2020). The information that is now available does indicate that cannabis usage during pregnancy may be linked to issues like low birth weight, neurodevelopmental consequences in children, and premature birth (Vanstone et al., 2021). These facts indicate that the authors of this investigation were right in wanting to determine the extent and evidence for use of cannabis in women of childbearing age.  Quantitative Research Critique Discussion

ORDER  NOW

Literature Review

The health of a newborn baby may be negatively impacted by using cannabis during pregnancy, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2020). Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is one of the compounds in cannabis that can cross the placenta barrier and affect a fetus’s intrauterine development. Expectant women are advised not to use marijuana at all, even though more research is necessary to completely comprehend the potential effects of cannabis on expectant mothers and their unborn child (CDC, 2020). In spite of this, some who believe cannabis has health benefits may still want to use it or be inspired to do so throughout pregnancy and lactation (Vanstone et al., 2021). To reduce the risk, however, counseling that looks at the reasons individuals are thinking about using cannabis and offers relevant alternatives or harm reduction techniques has been found to be effective. Vanstone et al. (2021) state that in order to implement such a strategy, practitioners must be aware of the reasons why women choose to use cannabis before, during, and after becoming pregnant.  Quantitative Research Critique Discussion

The literature review done by the authors in the article employs current evidence, facts and figures. Additionally, it is problem-specific and addresses the problem presented in the purpose statement. In this case it is the use of cannabis by women of childbearing age. As Skelton et al. (2020) have observed; an increasing amount of research is being done on women’s attitudes, knowledge, and views around cannabis use. It is therefore essential to evaluate the predisposing factors to cannabis use among reproductive-age women at key junctures in their lives, including adolescence, preconception, pregnancy, and the postpartum period. This is in order to create customized and successful programs that discourage cannabis use. Quantitative Research Critique Discussion

But according to Skelton et al. (2020), there is yet to be a thorough, comprehensive assessment – which includes a psychometric evaluation – of the current assessments of these possible causes of cannabis usage among women who are fertile. Healthcare professionals and investigators would surely benefit from such a systematic analysis of available metrics on antecedents of cannabis use in order to determine which measure is most appropriate for their particular group and aim. In the literature review by the authors, the global prevalence of cannabis use in the year 2018 is placed at 3.9%. The facts also state that within the last ten years there has been a steady rise in the use of cannabis in developed countries such as Canada and North America. Quantitative Research Critique Discussion

Hypothesis/ Research Question

This research article does not have an explicit hypothesis or research question. The PICOT statement is also lacking. What this means is that these would have to be inferred from the information availed by the authors. Going by the purpose statement, the hypothesis seems to be a null hypothesis at the beginning of the investigation. This could be framed as follows: There is no correlation between the use of cannabis among women of childbearing age and their knowledge, motivation, influences, practices, attitudes, and perceptions about the same. On the other hand, the PICOT statement could be framed as follows: Among women of childbearing age (P), the use of cannabis (I) compared to not using it (C) leads to unwanted consequences to the unborn child as well as the mother (O) during the peripartum period (T).

Study Variables

Study variables comprise independent, dependent, and confounding or extraneous variables. This study by Skelton et al. (2020) – like all other quantitative research initiatives – also had all of these. The independent variable in this study was the use of cannabis as a woman of childbearing age. On the other hand, the dependent variable was made up of the knowledge, perceptions, influences, motivation, and attitudes of the women using cannabis. Quantitative Research Critique Discussion Extraneous or confounding variables (that may not have been controlled by the researchers but that may all the same have influenced the outcome) in this case would include the level of education of the subjects, their socioeconomic status, marital status, and social support system amongst others. Salient patient characteristics included female gender, being in the childbearing age, and a history of using cannabis.

Setting and Sample

This being a scoping review, the sample was made up of the selected studies instead of individual subjects as is the case with a primary study. The setting was a library with research databases that have the most current journal articles that have been peer-reviewed. The databases used were CINAHL, PubMed, PsychINFO, and Google Scholar. According to the researchers in this article, the final sample consisted of n=11 articles. Of these, 10 were primary studies while one was a systematic review. Sample characteristics or inclusion criteria were that the study had to have been published in English. It must also have been published between 2010 and 2021. Quantitative Research Critique Discussion

Nine research, or around 81% of the total, were published within the preceding four years. Samples of women from a range of life phases were included in the investigations; two focused exclusively on non-pregnant women, and one on women who were infertile (Skelton et al., 2020). Eight studies on perinatal women were included as the bulk of the research, with four and three of them concentrating exclusively on pregnant or postpartum women. The majority of the studies (n = 8) sourced their female participants from clinics or hospitals, whereas two of them conducted secondary data analyses and reported information gleaned from US national surveillance databases. The sample was definitely a purposive sample. Quantitative Research Critique Discussion

Methods/ Design

This was a scoping review of existing studies addressing the subject in the purpose statement (cannabis use by women of childbearing age). It is quantitative in design but does not go into details of assigning subjects to control and experimental groups. This will have already been done in the individual studies that male up the review evidence. Munn et al. (2018) state that scoping studies are helpful for analyzing new data when it is still uncertain what additional, more focused questions may be asked and effectively answered by a more focused systematic review. They can provide information on the kinds of evidence that deal with and guide field practice as well as the methodology used in the study. Scoping reviews are often carried out with the aim of mapping and identifying the available proof. Quantitative Research Critique Discussion

Measurement/ Instrumentation

This was a scoping review and so there was no instrumentation used in the study itself. However, these were used in the individual studies that were included for review. They included questionnaires and other instruments in the ten primary studies included. As would be expected, the validity and reliability of each of the instruments in the individual studies varied substantially. This would have a bearing on the validity, reliability, and generalizability of the results of this study as a scoping review.

Procedures for the Study

The articles were selected from the databases mentioned above with the help of the Covidence Software (Skelton et al., 2020). The most appropriate articles that met the inclusion criteria in the review process were selected in two phases or stages. Two anonymous research members were tasked with conducting a pilot study of the screening process for selection of articles for the review. The entire selection process followed PRISMA guidelines. Quantitative Research Critique Discussion

Data Analysis

Being a scoping review this study was limited to just presenting the findings that were arrived at by the included research studies. The investigators reviewed all and then came up with conclusions about the available evidence and evidence gaps based on the outcomes of the individual studies included in the review. It must be stated however that the included studies made use of both descriptive statistics and inferential nonparametric tests such as Chi-square test, t-test, and analysis of variance or ANOVA. Quantitative Research Critique Discussion

Results

The results showed that the knowledge, perceptions, influences, motivation, and attitudes of women that used cannabis varied greatly. However, it was clear that the extent of the problem and its impact has not yet been studied fully. After this scoping review, there is need for a more specific and more focused systematic review to gain better insight into the research problem. Quantitative Research Critique Discussion

Limitations

            The limitations in this study include the exclusion by the authors of what they call “gray literature” as well as other studies published in English. Also, they strictly employed restrictions on the date of publication because they wanted only current evidence. This may have denied them some relevant evidence that is also available.

Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations

The conclusion from this study is that there are indeed knowledge gaps and gaps in evidence concerning the use of cannabis by women of childbearing age. Gaps also exist concerning what they know about the problem, what motivates them to use cannabis, their perceptions, attitudes, and influences. The implications to practice are that it will be difficult to apply evidence-based interventions to the problem if these gaps are not addressed by further research. The recommendation is therefore that a better more focused and more specific systematic review needs to be done to answer the hypothesis and research question. Quantitative Research Critique Discussion

Level of Evidence (LoE)

A scoping review only has moderately strong evidence and cannot be equated to a systematic review. As such, given the available guidelines, the LoE of this study is level II in the hierarchy of evidence.

Conclusion

This was a scoping review to determine several variables applicable to women of childbearing age who smoke cannabis. The authors selected 11 articles that were current at the time for review. Ten of these were primary studies while only one was a systematic review. The study identified gaps in evidence and practice that require a more rigorous and focused systematic review to answer the research question. Quantitative Research Critique Discussion