Critique of Qualitative Research Paper: Women’s experiences of the OASI Care Bundle; a Package of Care to Reduce Severe Perineal Trauma. (Research Paper Sample)

Critique of Qualitative Research Paper: Women’s experiences of the OASI Care Bundle; a Package of Care to Reduce Severe Perineal Trauma. Name Course Institution Instructor Date Critique of Qualitative Research Paper: Women’s experiences of the OASI Care Bundle; a Package of Care to Reduce Severe Perineal Trauma. Abstract This qualitative study investigates women's experiences with the OASI Care Bundle possesses the following strengths: Well-written with appropriate citations, well-presented and substantive findings, arguments, and distinct themes with matching subthemes. The drawbacks are the failure to discuss the research methodology and sampling process utilized, the use of semi-interviews to collect data, and a shallow-elaborated analysis procedure. The study was sufficiently descriptive of the participants' experiences with OASI Care Bundle, which contributed to its transferability and robust conclusions. This study can be recommended to Obstetricians and Gynecologists as required reading due to its credibility, transferability, dependability, goodness, and robustness. Critique of the Tittle The study is titled "Women's experiences of the OASI Care Bundle; a Package of Care to Reduce Severe Perineal Trauma," authored by Posy Bidwell et al. (2021). The title is brief. As so, it informs the readers of the study's focus and primary subject. Nevertheless, the type of research being conducted has not been included in the title. The research is well-organized and qualitatively rigorous, with an outstanding portrayal of the experiences of women with the OASI Care Bundle and distinct themes and responses. As a component of the project assessment, the research was conducted to investigate experiences of women who engaged in the OASI Care Bundle program. The authors have effectively organized their paper around the OASI Care Bundle’s aspects: Mediolateral episiotomy, Antenatal knowledge, Hands-on protection of the perineal, and detection, diagnosis, and treatment of perineal tears. It is organized around questionnaires that have been meticulously developed by researchers in order to obtain systematic data from respondents. This strategy enabled them to collect, store, organize, and analyze data more effectively and efficiently, so making the report far more understandable. Critique of Authors The author's job title and qualifications are provided. The research team was made up of competent and known experts from several Obstetricians and Gynecologists institutes across the country. A higher proportion of them held Ph.D. degrees in their respective professions, with only a few holding master's degrees. This implies that they have the necessary experience, clinical knowledge, and research expertise to conduct such a study. They are all hired in academic environments in the United Kingdom. This might be said to be a significant strength of this study because researchers have the contextual and local knowledge to conduct research within such a cultural arena; yet, the lack of a non-partisan contributor limits the study's balance, resulting in a lack of broader perspective. Critique of Abstract The report begins with an abstract that introduces readers to the goal of the study, which was to investigate the OASI Care Bundle experiences of women. This is a beneficial quality of the post because it clearly conveys the emphasis of the piece to the reader. The abstract then provides a summary of the hypothesis, research methods, results, and conclusion. However, this abstract never discusses the techniques of data collecting and analysis or the consequences of the study. At each stage along the publishing continuum, the quality of the abstract is a crucial factor in determining the legacy and life of a research study. According to the AACN's criteria, an incomplete abstract is a poor-quality abstract that may lead database indexers to commit indexing omissions or errors that consign the paper to obscurity in literature searches. Critique of the Introduction & Literature Review The introduction section for this research begins with supporting evidence that is pertinent to the study question, citing statistical data regarding vaginal births which result in genital tract injuries. Furthermore, the authors reveal startling statistics regarding obstetric anal sphincter damage (OASI), making the literature pertinent to this particular investigation. The numbers demonstrate to the reader that OASI is a significant medical issue worthy of investigation. The second key literature review gives the medical definition of OASI, so directly supporting the current study. This provides the reader with a complete picture of the subject when combined with relevant statistics. A recent systematic evaluation of perineal procedures indicated that additional research is required to determine which techniques reduce perineal injuries. This citation corresponds exactly to this research, and the study is up-to-date (Bandara et al., 2015). The usage of current research indicates that the study generated greater attention and exceptional findings, which reinforces the importance of the current investigation. The literature also details the history of perineal care, where Soranus of Ephesus wrote that hands-on technique has to be employed to help cushion the genitalia (perineum), and a compress/push should be used to constrain the anus. The paper also discusses the origins of perineal protection, which was a top priority for midwives. Also included are the 1871 thoughts of physician Goodell, who noted differences about the same subject. The writers present the historical context for the evolution of this issue into the contemporary healthcare system (Kerkhove et al., 2020). This helps to provide a contrast and comparison of what the researchers are undertaking within the historical context of their study and how their research is unique or different from what other researchers have done, which helps to justify why they choose/need to conduct this specific research (Pan, M., 2016). The introduction is concise and concludes with a summary of the study's goal. The introduction is overall logical and lucid, and the literature studies convincingly support necessity of the investigation. Critique of Hypothesis This paper contains no hypotheses because qualitative research methods do not utilize hypotheses, which are typical of quantitative studies. Critique of Methodology According to Hammer & Berland (2014), the methodology section should offer a detailed explanation of the selected study style. In this study the authors indicate explicitly that they employed a qualitative method to obtain a comprehensive examination of experiences women had with the OASI Care Bundle. Nevertheless, this is the sole mention of the study's nature. It is incorrect to use the qualitative description as a different research methodology in and of itself. The paucity of relevant research in Britain does explain the choice of methodology. However, the authors did not attempt to describe, investigate, or assess any research paradigm, philosophical orientation, ideological foundations, the framework, or qualitative theories associated with the study they are conducting. Schaefer & Alvesson (2020) acknowledged that the subject of qualitative study methodology is extensive, intricate, and replete with numerous theoretical models and frameworks, and hence there are numerous methods the authors could have applied to their qualitative research concepts. Therefore, it may be claimed that this paper suffers from a severe lack of systematic transparency and justification, which will not only limit the capacity to duplicate and reproduce this study but also its generalization beyond the study group. The research report does not offer sufficient transparency for the authors to assess its methodological rigor, as none of the aforementioned concepts are explored, and there is no substantiation that the researchers who conducted the study have sought to justify their methodology or assess its cons and pros. Nonetheless, qualitative methods are justified. The total robustness of the qualitative study approach is low since more than 50% of the previously listed possible criteria of rigor were absent. Sampling Gentles et al. 2015, assert that sampling consists mostly of sample designs and size concerns, which is crucial in all qualitative studies. Such variables would aid qualitative researchers in selecting sample designs and sizes most suitable for their study objectives. Sampling transcends study paradigms in general and study methodologies in particular. This study makes inferences from the sampling of words to the true space of each respondent when conducting theme analyses on interview data. When the objective of qualitative research is to generalize its findings, the sample size and research methodology are unquestionably vital (Robinson, O.C., 2014). Consequently, sampling should be considered in all qualitative investigations, regardless of their goal. This is not the case in this study; sample sizes are not chosen arbitrarily, and there is little or no justification for the sampling procedure. A qualitative research should have a sample adequacy which defines how suitable the size and composition of the study’s sample is. It is utilized in the assessment of the research’s validity, generalizability, reliability and quality, especially for research that is positioned within a post-positivist culture and maintains some commitment to pragmatist ontological premises (Oppong, 2013). Although the study provides eligibility criteria for selecting participants, it fails to inform the readers which sampling method the researchers utilized. The sample size of 19 is good, and saturation is likely to have been reached with this sample size. However, it is unclear how the value 19 was chosen. In order to analyze the women's experience with the OASI Ca...