Critical appraisal II:COIVD_19
Research design: research can either be in the form of numerical data, non-numerical, or both. In this study, the researcher forms non-numerical information to compare efficiency between the respiratory mask and standard face masks in the current situation of the COVID-19 pandemic. To get the insight that is adequate to solve the problem identified in the research, a survey is conducted on secondary data such as guidelines from the World Health Organization and Public Health England. All the guidelines outlined in the study give protective measures concerning the proper use of face masks and combining the face masks with other types of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves, eye protection, and full-body gowns. The research also includes an a critical numerical appraisal on six random significant trials to identify the statistical difference between the effect of using respiratory masks as compared to using standard face masks. Therefore I classify this research as mixed-method research. The quantitative research method used in this study includes analyzing and assessment of secondary data using the Meta-analysis technique. The research does not alter any of the variables the independent study variable; hence it is non-experimental.
By applying a mixed method for the study, the researcher has managed to have a great source of data for developing a conclusive comparison between both respiratory masks and standard face masks. For example, through qualitative research, the study identifies that in consideration of efficiency differences between the two types of masks, there are no significant differences. The qualitative research also helps to identify other factors such as level of hygiene, the effects of combining masks face with other PPE as well as the impact of person protection policies. This information leaves to concentrate on the personal related data and leave out the information relating to scientific research. Fortunately, including the quantitative research methods in the study through the meta-analysis has help to give laboratory results, which has effective experimental results. Using the mixed research method gives the research inclusive outcomes hence the best way to carry out the research.
The researcher uses both a historical-research design to collect data from the Cochrane Database and exploratory design by snowballing through social media. This research design aims to investigate and understand the protective measures that can be used by an individual to protect themselves under the new COVID-19 virus pandemic. Since this is a unique condition, there is limited information known about it. Therefore, both existing data and carrying out online research in the best combination for getting data to relate to the effective use of PPE.
The study identifies the population under study, which the research includes that due to the current pandemic situation, there is a need for healthcare providers and the public to protect themselves. To specify the study, the researcher clear states that the research focuses specifically on the UK healthcare workers who provide primary services in hospitals and different care homes. Given that COIVD_19 has been identified as an infectious illness. Every individual must take care and primarily the healthcare providers since they are the ones with the closest contact with the patients. Therefore the researcher has complete and specified criteria that confine the research only to include healthcare providers who get in contact with the COVID-19 patients.
The research used two groups. Each of these groups consists of 126 titles or documents under survey. From this sampling, I would suggest that this research apply a cluster sampling method. The researcher first divides the items into two clusters, which include data collected from two databases (Cochrane or Medline database) and data gathered from tweeter (social media). The database cluster allows the research to collect historical data, and he used social media to search for current data concerning protection measures and, therefore, these two sets of appropriate for the research.
Data collection: To enhance safety during the data collection process, the researcher eliminates direct contact with the participant by using online material and database information. This is an effective way to protect both the researcher and the participant from the infection since one can get infected through face to face communication, sneezing, and coughing. The study includes a group of researchers in the UK who were given the mandate to find out the level of risk exposure of the healthcare provider. The researchers also were tasks to identify the conditions that affected healthcare provide safety while using either a respiratory face mask or standard face masks. The research team collected data from particular selected newspapers posted in the tweeter and randomized selection of articles in both the World Health Organization and the Cochrane electronic database. The process of collecting the data includes a total of 252 items which most of which are standardized data from recognized and approved electronic databases. These entire articles are assessed, and the relevant information extracts to formulate the relevant context that helps to provide a solution for the problem in the form of a survey.
The researchers use the AMSTAR II checklist as the measuring tool with fifteen questions, identified and responded to according to the structure and the context of the research. For example, according to AMSTAT II, the first measurement question, the study has adequately addressed all the PICOT requirements. Another question, mentioned checklist as measurement tool includes testing if the author used an inclusive context for the search and testing for the research bias. Additionally, the researcher uses sensitivity analysis to critically appraise all the random critical trials and test for their quality. The efficiency of the two masks is measured using statistical laboratory tests such as the statistic lab result for positively confirmed influenza, positive respiratory viral infection result, and COVID-19 testing results.
The problem i is solved be analyzing the quality level of each of the masks using variables .such as efficiency, proper-use perspective, and risk of exposure. All these variables have produced consistent results under different forms of testing and therefore have an adequate parallel kind of reliability. The results of the research give a definitive solution to the problem as intended and also the shortcoming that can contribute to the low efficiency of the face masks.
To effectively differentiate efficiency between standard masks and respiratory masks, the research has clearly defined the difference in meaning and any area that can lead to a contradiction. The study has additionally identified external factors that would affect all influence the accuracy of differentiating the two protective measures. Furthermore, the researchers suggest that to use either for the face masks effectively, the healthcare most incorporate the other protection measures. The context of the study also gives a guideline for the proper use of PPE, and this information is adequate to ensure that the result of the research can be effectively implemented into healthcare practices. Having extracted information relating to influenza instead of information that related to the illness stated in the problem can create a contradiction. However, to overcome the limitation the researcher clearly explains that the consideration for collecting this data is due to limited information about COVID-19
In conclusion, the researcher states that the current research has a trail that helps to compare the masks as well as give a guideline on how one can effectively use face masks to maximized protection against infection. Most of the population from which the data is collected does not involve COVID-19 patients. Using face masks is a simple part of the personal protective equipment, and it is only effective if other protective measures are incorporated together. Additionally, donning and doffing of the equipment is a crucial area that needs proper hygiene and precautions. The conclusion also identifies the possibility of future research to give more details concerning the same problem.
From this research, certain areas can be selected for future research, and in PICO form, this question can include:
- What is the effect of proper donning compared to proper doffing while enhancing protection from COID-19 infection?
- What is the risk exposure to healthcare providers during a pandemic as compare to when there is no pandemic in the healthcare sector?
- What is the benefit of using guidelines protection compare to using PPE without any guidelines in healthcare?
To solve these problems, I would prefer to use a mixed research method and focus more on implementing evidence-based practices to enhance the implementation of the POCIT strategy in the research.
Reference
Hatala, R., & Cook, D. A. (2019). Reliability and validity. Healthcare Simulation Research (pp. 191-197). Springer, Cham.
Greenhalgh, T., Chan, X. H., Khunti, K., Durand-Moreau, Q., Straube, S., Devane, D., … & Ireland, C. (2020). What is the efficacy of standard face masks compared to respirator masks in preventing COVID-type respiratory illnesses in primary care staff?[Internet].