NURS1107/MIDW2003 SECREV PROCESS in more detail

Adapted from Borbasi, Jackson and Langford RW 2004 Navigating the Maze of Nursing Research, Mosby, Missouri.

Survey A Examine the titlewhat is the relevance of the title to this research paper? Is it representative of the content of the report? What are the phenomena under study? Does the title make this clear? B What were the authors qualifications? What do all the letters after their names represent? Are these important to review when reading research papers? Why? Are these authors suitable qualified/experienced to undertake the research? Why? C From the abstract is it possible to determine the type of study it is? Is there sufficient information to determine whether this research article would be relevant to your needs? D Does the article have a standard format and include all of the important components of a research report? What are the important components you look for? E Is the reference list comprehensive and relevant to the topic? What year range were the cited references published in? Is this an important issue? F What is your general feeling/sense of the research study following your initial survey? G Make a statement in your own words as to what the research was about. Examine H Working through section by section, identify the key areas each paragraph/section makes. Make a dot point list summary of these key points. I What questions, terminology, concepts or ideas are puzzling for you? Can other members of the group answer or clarify any of these? Are there any common puzzling aspects that need to be clarified by the lecturer?

Critically read J What is the purpose of this study? What is the specific research question the authors are trying to answer/address?

K What is the importance of this study? What justification do the authors use for doing the study and it potential value to healthcare knowledge? L What (if any) specific research design was used? Do the authors justify their choice of research design? M Where was the study conducted? Was there enough detail provided to understand the context of the setting? Was ethical clearance provided? N Who was the target population? What type of sampling did they use? Who were the participants? How many participants were there? How were participants selected and recruited? Was there an inclusion/exclusion criteria used? O What types of data were collected? How was this collected? How accurate and credible do you think the data collection was? Can you readily follow the steps of the research process? P How was the data analysed? Have the authors given a clear description of data analysis or do they assume the reader will know? Are the ideas presented concisely and comprehensively? Q How have the authors represented the data in their report? Is the data representative to the discussion provided? Does the discussion flow logically from the data? Does the representation of data match the research method and help answer the research question? Did the discussion present a clear picture of the phenomena under study/answer the question? R Were the results tied back to existing knowledge? Was a discussion made as the relevance of the results/outcomes of this study to the existing knowledge of lack of? S Were the results directly relevant to clinical practice? How are the results related to practice? Do the results provide enough evidence to change practice? Why? T Do the ideas/conclusions make logical or intuitive sense? Did the authors discuss limitations of their study?

Evaluate U Was this study a good one? What makes it good or bad? What are the most important aspects you would consider in making this judgment call? V Can the results be applied to practice? Visualise W How might these results be use in your own healthcare practice? What might you now do differently as a result of this research study?