Monash Occupational Therapy Research Evidence Critique Form

Monash Occupational Therapy Research Evidence Critique Form

(MOTRECF; © Brown & Lentin, 2012) (Revised 07/2012)

 

Instructions: The MOTRECF is designed as a combination information extraction form and research critique form. It is suitable for application with studies that use either a quantitative and qualitative research methodology. You are asked to complete a series of questions about each section of a typical published research study. You may need to report specific details about the study you are reviewing (e.g., aim of study, type of reference citations used, sample size, details of assessment tools/methods of data gathering and analysis, acknowledged limitations, etc). You will then be asked to give a numerical rating of the ‘quality’ of each section of the study using a Likert-type scale scored out of ten. You will also be asked to write some critical comments about each section of the study. The text box for the critical comments is expandable. It is suggested that you use full sentences or point form for your critical comments.

 

At the end of the MOTRECF, you are asked to transfer all of your rating scores to the summary score sheet. You are then asked to write an overall summary critique of the study. You should highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the study plus mention any professional implications and how the study findings inform professional practice.

 

Complete sections appropriate for the study methodology. Sections in normal black print apply to all types of study design, sections highlighted in purple apply to quantitative studies and sections highlighted in blue apply to qualitative studies

 

Full Citation of Study Publication (using APA formatting)

Shiel, A., Burn, J. P., Henry, D., Clark, J., Wilson, B. A., Burnett, M. E., & McLellan, D. L. (2001). The effects of increased rehabilitation therapy after brain injury: results of a prospective controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 15(5), 501-514.

 

1. Background

 

1. Reviewer Information

1a. Reviewer’s name ______________________________________

1b. Date of review [mm/dd/yy] ___________

 

2. Source Information

2a. Study identifier [title of study]-

• The effects of increased rehabilitation therapy after brain injury: results of a prospective controlled trial

2b. Date of publication-26-04 2001  � NA

2c. Name of journal where published- Sage publishers NA

 

3. Source type

􀁻 Journal article                               􀁻 Conference paper

􀁻 Book                                               􀁻 Published abstract

􀁻 Unpublished article/study          �Thesis or dissertation

􀁻 Other [specify] _________________________________________

 

4. Databases Searched [check all that apply]

􀁻 Medline                  � CINAHL                 � PsycINFO              � ERIC

􀁻 Sociofile                � OTSeeker              􀁻 OTDase                 � AMED

􀁻 SPORTDiscus      􀁻 EMBASE.com       􀁻 Cochrane              􀁻 Meditext

􀁻 EBM reviews         � ACP journal club 􀁻 Scopus                  􀁻REHABDATA

􀁻 Proquest health & medical complete               􀁻 PEDro:

􀁻 Cochrane database of systematic reviews      􀁻 Factiva

􀁻 AMI: Australasian medical index          􀁻 Australian Bureau of Statistics

􀁻 Mental Measurements Yearbook          􀁻 H&S: health & society dbase

􀁻 Health and psychosocial instruments (HAPI)

􀁻 RURAL: rural and remote health database

􀁻 EThOS: Beta: Electronic Theses Online System

􀁻 Database of abstracts of reviews of effects (DARE)

􀁻 International encyclopaedia of rehabilitation

􀁻 Others [specify] ________________________________________

 

5. Key Search Terms Used [list all that were used below; include only if research article was obtained via a specific search strategy]

• GCS-Glasgow Coma Scale
• OT-Occupational Therapist
• RN- Rehabilitation Nurse
• SALT-Speech and language therapist
• PT- Physiotherapist
• FAM-Functional assessment measure
• FIM- Functional independence measure

 

1. Screening Questions [continue if yes to (1 or 2) and yes to each of 3, 4, 5]

 

1. Does the source pertain to a quantitative research study? � Yes � No
2. Does the source pertain to a qualitative research study? � Yes � No
3. Does the source pertain to a mixed method research study? � Yes � No
4. Does the source contain research results? � Yes � No
5. What is the age grouping of the participants? – 16- 70 years of age 􀁻 Child � Adolescent  � Adult  � Older adult  � Other (specify):
6. Does the source pertain to medical, health science, allied health,

occupational therapy, rehabilitation studies or other related field?  � Yes  � No

7. Country study conducted in _England___________________________
8. Does the study have ethics committee approval? � Yes  � No

 

 

1. Study Purpose / Aim

 

1a. List the purpose / aim of the study

• The goal was to study the influence of an amplified amount of recuperation therapy delivered to brain-injured patients and the rate at which independence was recovered.

 

 

1b. Was the purpose / aim clearly stated?

􀁻 Not stated   Very unclear  � Somewhat unclear   Somewhat clear  � Very clear

 

1c. How does the purpose / aim of the study relate to occupational therapy practice and your PICO research question or search strategy?

• Occupational therapists play a significant task in rehabilitating sick patients, and with reduced hospital stay and increased independence of patients, their work is made efficient.

 

2a. List the hypotheses / research questions of the study [if applicable]

• 1 Increased amount of rehabilitation hastens the ability to regain independence in a brain injury patient.
• Length of hospital stay is reduced with increased rehabilitation regimen.

 

2b. Were the hypotheses / research questions clearly stated? [if applicable]

􀁻 Not stated  � Very unclear  � Somewhat unclear  � Somewhat clear  � Very clear

 

3a. List the general relevance of the study and specific relevance to occupational therapy practice & occupational performance

• This study helps reduce the resources to be used when the length of the hospital stay of a patient is longer.
• It also helps patients to gain functionality at a faster rate than other therapies.
• Recovered patients can be integrated back into society as productive members

 

3b. Was the relevance of the study clearly stated?

• 􀁻 Not stated � Very unclear  � Somewhat unclear  � Somewhat clear  � Very clear

 

4a. List the rationale of the study (e.g., justification or argument provided by study authors as to the importance, significance or necessity of having the study completed.

• The effect of increased rehabilitation having not been done officially, it is evident that the study presents the question of interest to be tackled and justified.
• The study aims at testing the effect of more amount of therapy proposed on patients with brain injury and the length of hospital stay to be expected.

 

4b. Was the rationale of the study clearly stated?

􀁻 Not stated  � Very unclear  � Somewhat unclear   Somewhat clear  � Very clear

5. Overall rating of study purpose/aim quality:

Comment on the purpose/aim of the study and its relevance to occupational therapy practice. Use your own words and include your thoughts and opinions. Critique what you think are strengths and weaknesses about this component of the study. You need to include a minimum of 4 sentences for this section. The purpose of this study has been clearly outlined; therefore, I am convinced that the research group have identified a good gap whose research findings will help patients with mental injuries recuperate well.

 

 

0     1          2          3          4          5         6          7          8          9          10

Very poor                                                                                      Excellent

 

• This study has many reasons backing its existence; for example, the final realization that patients’ length of stay in hospital will be shortened and also the use of fewer resources to support them.
• Although the study presents a brighter future to brain injury patients, it is quite sad that not all the patients with mental injuries qualify for this kind of therapy.
• Age also is a stumbling block to the administration of this therapy for it serves the young more efficiently than the older population.

 

 

1. Literature Review

 

1. Total number of reference citations included in the reference list.

􀁻 0             � 1-10            � 11-20          � 21-30          � 31-40          � >41

 

2. Are the following citations included in the reference list?

Book citations                             � Yes  � No

Journal article citations              � Yes  � No

Conference abstract citations   � Yes   No

Other types of citations              � Yes   No

 

3)Comment on the citation dates of the article references in relation to the date of the research study, acceptance for publication and/or the date the article was published.

• The dates of the articles used to perform a literature review range from 1987 to 1995.
• Therefore, considering that the study in place was published in the year 2001, it is entirely unacceptable that the reference material dates back to an old year as 1987.
• The time difference should be no more than ten years; it would have been much better if it was a five-year-old difference of time.

 

4. Were key researchers/authors related to the content area and study topic cited?

􀁻 Yes                    � Not clear               � No

 

4. Did the background literature that was cited provide support for the purpose / aim of the study?

􀁻 Yes                    � Not clear                � No

 

6. Did the background literature that was cited provide a sound, credible and convincing rationale for the study?

􀁻 Yes                    � Not clear                � No

 

 

 

7. Overall rating of study literature review and reference citations quality:

 

0     1          2          3          4          5         6          7          8          9          10

Very poor                                                                                      Excellent

 

 

 

 

 

Comment on the quality of the literature review included in the study and its relevance to occupational therapy practice. Use your own words and include your thoughts and opinions.  Critique what you think are strengths and weaknesses about this component of the study. You need to include at least 4 sentences for this section. ·         The studies conducted in the past provide a solid foundation for the study of this field. ·         The literature review helped a lot in the identification of this gap the questions to be researched and answered concerning brain injury recovery. ·         It is quite well thought as the articles studied present the alternative methods that were exploited in the past only that it is quite unappealing to use themes that date back to more than ten years in a study of such great importance to health. ·         Recent articles are far much reliable and updated to the required magnitude of knowledge. ·         Finally, I would deem this literature review somewhat useful in that it has presented a good platform for this study.

1. 
   Design Considerations

 

1. Study design [choose all terms used to describe the study design]

 

1a. Quantitative

1b. Qualitative

􀁻 Meta-Analysis 􀁻 Systematic Review 􀁻 Case series, case report 􀁻 Cross-sectional 􀁻 Randomized Control Trial (RCT) 􀁻 Cohort study 􀁻 Quasi experimental 􀁻 Ecologic study 􀁻 Before & after study/pre-post test 􀁻 Non-randomized control trial 􀁻 Case-control study 􀁻 Prospective cohort study 􀁻 Retrospective cohort study 􀁻 Case report / case series study 􀁻 Single Subject/single case design 􀁻 Survey questionnaire 􀁻 Expert opinion 􀁻 Quantitative other type [specify] ____________________________

􀁻 Interview 􀁻 Focus group 􀁻 Case Study 􀁻 Longitudinal 􀁻 Emergent 􀁻 Evaluation 􀁻 Grounded Theory 􀁻 Ethnography [specify type] ______________________________ 􀁻 Phenomenology [specify type] ______________________________ 􀁻 Narrative [specify type] ______________________________ 􀁻 Naturalistic inquiry 􀁻 Participatory action research 􀁻 Survey questionnaire 􀁻 Qualitative other type [specify] __Direct observation______________________________

 

Quantitative studies

 

2a. Was the measurement schedule reported?             � Yes 􀁻 No

2b. Number of measurement time points ___________ (if applicable)

2c. Length of time between measurements [report for all time points] _____

____________________________________________________________

2d. Were the measurement schedules the same for all participant groups?

􀁻 Yes �No

3. Were any biases (any effect at any stage of a study that produces or influences results that depart systematically from the true values of data gathered in a study) operating in the context of the study based on its design?

[choose all that were impacting on the study].

􀁻 Sample / selection / participant selection bias (may result in the subjects in the sample being unrepresentative of the group/population of interest)

􀁻 Placebo effect

􀁻 Honeymoon effect / novelty factor bias

􀁻 Measurement / instrumentation / detection bias (involves systematic error that can occur in collecting relevant data; may due to equipment not being properly calibrated or wording of questions)

􀁻 Intervention / performance bias (generally associated with research that compares groups)

􀁻 Volunteer or referral bias

􀁻 Site / location for treatment / intervention bias

􀁻 Attention bias / Hawthorne effect

􀁻 Participant / respondent error (error within the individual for any reason)

􀁻 Rater / Examiner bias (bias in the use of instrument or recording of evaluation data)

􀁻 Lack of masking or independent evaluation

􀁻 Recall or memory bias (imperfect recall of past events)

􀁻 Procedural bias (when an unfair amount of pressure is applied to participants, forcing them to complete responses too quickly)

􀁻 Response bias (participant consciously or subconsciously gives a response that they think the researcher wants to hear or obtain)

􀁻 Reporting bias (tendency for researchers to only publish positive or significant results)

􀁻 Contamination

􀁻 Co-intervention / treatment

􀁻 Withdrawal from study / loss to follow-up bias

􀁻 Others [specify] _________________________________________________________________

 

 

Qualitative studies

 

4. Was the choice of methodology/design supported by a theoretical perspective? � Yes             � No

Please comment: _

• Yes, it was supported for the methods of choosing the research subjects in a right way, and it included a random selection of participants who met the criterion of choice in the two health centres.

 

5. Was the choice of design appropriate for:

The research aim / questions?                              � Yes             � No

The population / sample group being studied?  � Yes             � No

 

6. Was the role of the researcher and relationship with participants stated?

� Yes             � No

 

7. Overall rating of quantitative or qualitative study design quality:

 

0          1          2          3          4          5         6          7          8          9          10

Very poor                                                                                           Excellent

 

Comment on the design considerations of the study. Use your own words and include your thoughts and opinions. Critique what you think are strengths and weaknesses about this component of the study. This applies if the study used either a quantitative or qualitative research design.  You need to include a minimum of at least 4 sentences for this section. The design outlined clearly suited this type of study.  Randomization of sampling proofs to be much efficient and reliable in collecting such kind of data as the target population is well represented. Due to variation in the severity of the injury, random allocation of the patients to intervention groups and routine groups became somewhat complicated. Although difficulties were encountered, the final result was still achieved through the use of sophisticated computer techniques to solve this challenge. It is therefore wise to conclude that despite the challenges, this kind of design still presented the research group with a good result.

 

 

 

1. Sampling Considerations

 

1. Report of sampling method used in study:

􀁻 Reported in this source � Reported in another source       � Not reported

 

2. Sampling methods [check all that apply]

 

2a. Quantitative	2b.Qualitative
􀁻 Random 􀁻 Convenience 􀁻 Other [specify]__________________	􀁻 Purposive / purposeful 􀁻 Convenience 􀁻 Theoretical 􀁻 Other [specify] ___________________

 

3. [Qualitative studies only] Why were the participants selected? (Rationale for selection)

• They were chosen to determine the relationship between increased therapy and recovery based on their qualifications to fit in the study group that was outlined, for example belonging to an age group of 16 to 70 years.

 

 

4a. Was ethics committee approval obtained before the study commenced?

􀁻 Yes            � No               � Not discussed

 

4b. What was the name of the ethics committee?

Not mentioned

 

5a. Informed consent of study participants obtained? � Yes  � No � Not discussed

 

5b. How was informed consent obtained from participants? Report the details of how this was accomplished. If the participants were under the age of being able to provide informed consent or were not able to provide consent due to some form of incapacity, provide details of how this consent was obtained.

• Due to the mental state of the patients, written consent was required from the next of kin relatives.
• There was a choice to withdraw in the event the subject cannot continue, or the next of kin demands so.

 

 

 

5c. Were the ethical issues related to the study (privacy, confidentiality, security, potential risk to participants, ethics committee approval) discussed or considered? Please comment below.

• There is no detailed discussion that has been documented about the ethical considerations; the areas outlined are the need to obtain consent and choice of withdrawal only.

 

 

6. Where there any specific inclusion/exclusion criteria for the study reported?

� Yes  � No

 

6a. Inclusion criteria [list all]

• The patient chosen should have 16-70 years.
• No instance of having a mental ailment
• Brain injury should not be genetic but acquired

 

 

 

• 6bExclusion criteria [list all]

• Three patients lost their lives hence reducing the sample size that was representative of the target population.
• The necessity to provide additional therapy to those who are not responding positively to increased intensity of treatment.
• There was also one patient that was misdiagnosed.

 

7. Was the sample described in detail? 􀁻 Yes � No

 

8. Was sample size justification provided? � Yes � No

 

9. [Qualitative studies only] Was the sampling process congruent with the research aim / question / methodology? � Yes � No

 

10. 10. Was a power analysis used to calculate the required sample size [if applicable]? 􀁻 Yes             � No               � Not Applicable

 

11. What was the sample size? N = 56_____

11.1   Population _____________           � NA � Unknown

11.2    # participants __55_________

11.3   # excluded ___1__________         � NA � Unknown

11.4   # included in this analysis ________

11.5   # lost to follow-up __3______         � NA � Unknown

11.6   Sample divided into sub groups? � Yes  � No

11.7   Number of sub groups__2 ___ (if applicable)

 

12. Were incentives (e.g., payment, gifts) provided to study participants?

� Yes  � No  � Not stated

 

13. Description given by: �Entire sample �Sub group description �Both

 

14. Socio-demographic variables by whole sample or sub-groups

 

	Variable	Type of Variable	Number of Categories (if categorical)
13a.	􀁻Age	􀁻Numerical 􀁻Categorical
13b.	􀁻Gender	􀁻Numerical 􀁻Categorical	NA
13c.	􀁻Race/ethnicity	􀁻Numerical 􀁻Categorical	NA
13d.	􀁻 Education Level	􀁻Numerical 􀁻Categorical	NA
13e.	􀁻Income / SES	􀁻Numerical 􀁻Categorical	NA
13f.	􀁻Living Status	􀁻Numerical 􀁻Categorical	NA
13g.	􀁻Other	􀁻Numerical 􀁻Categorical	NA

 

14. Numerical data [for 13a-13g above]	Mean	SD	Median	Minimum	Maximum	Range
Variable Name

 

 

15. Categorical variable name / data [for 13a-13g above]	N	%
Variable Name

 

16. Overall rating of study sampling methods quality:

 

0          1          2          3          4          5         6          7          8          9          10

Very poor                                                                                           Excellent

Comment on the quality of the sampling methods, sample size, method of recruitment and ethical considerations in relation to the study. Use your own words and include your thoughts and opinions. Critique what you think are strengths and weaknesses about this component of the study. A minimum of at least 4 sentences should be included in this section. ·         The sampling technique utilized is purposive method and subjects are selected based on an inclusion criterion. ·         The features to be met by subjects are well thought out, and they offer an acceptable form of style needed in recruiting suitable participants. ·         Random allocation of the participants into subgroups also is a good idea implemented in the study for the results postulated are desirable with useful techniques. ·         Although the sample size is considerably small due to the inability of hospitals to hold more patients, it is quite right that with a good number of patients the researcher is not subject to burn out and fatigue. ·         Therefore, it is quite clear that consent for the study was obtained from the ethical committee and also the next kin. Although a little number of principles have been explained as about the proper rules, it is quite evident that this study met the minimal requirements of research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Intervention [Complete if intervention study]

 

1. Was the intervention provided described in detail?

􀁻 Yes             � No   � Not addressed

 

2. Was contamination avoided?

􀁻 Yes             � No   � Not discussed   � Not applicable

 

3. Was co-intervention avoided?

􀁻 Yes             � No   � Not discussed   � Not applicable

 

4. Was a placebo effect avoided? yes

 

5. Was an intervention / performance bias avoided? Yes

 

6. Was attention bias / Hawthorne effect avoided? Yes

 

7. Was procedural bias avoided? Yes

 

8. Provide a description of the intervention provided. Include details about the

focus of the intervention, who received it, who delivered it, how often and the setting where it was delivered/provided.

• In both Poole and Southampton hospitals, an intervention was provided by specialized therapists.
• Southampton employed an occupational therapist while Poole brought on board a rehabilitation nurse that did the extra work apart from the routine treatment offered by the staff in place.
• Weekly therapy varied due to imbalance in the number of staff to offer routine treatment.
• Examples of interventions provided are speech therapies, physical exercises and grooming practice.

 

5. Could this intervention be replicated in occupational therapy practice?

􀁻 Yes  � No � Not applicable

 

6. Overall rating of intervention quality:

 

0          1          2          3          4          5         6          7          8          9          10

Very poor                                                                                           Excellent

If applicable, comment on the intervention(s) used in the study. Use your own words and include your thoughts and opinions. Critique what you think are strengths and weaknesses about this component of the study. A minimum of 4 sentences need to be included in this section. ·         The occupational therapist and rehabilitation nurse performed a commendable task in helping sick individuals gain independence. ·         It is quite commendable to observe that the interventions carried out are directed at improving the wellbeing of the patient, for example, physical and fitness training that helps restore muscle control and proprioception. ·         This interventional toolkit has covered a vast area that needs to be protected, and this is excellent. ·         Although much has been addressed, it is quite sad that these interventions do not support older people and those that are severely injured. ·         The older generation has been left out and not catered for in these interventional techniques.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Data Gathering Methods – Quantitative and Qualitative: Tests, Outcome Measures, and Data Gathering Tools /Methods – Survey, Interviews, Observation, Focus Group etc.

 

Quantitative studies

 

1. List the data gathering tools used including authors and year of publication.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

 

2. Comment on the occupational performance areas (e.g., self-care, productivity, leisure, play, education, roles, habits, values, time use, etc) measured by each test / scale. Comment on other traits, attributes, or constructs measured by each test / scale if applicable (e.g., cognitive skills, motor skills, attitudes, quality of life, self-concept, visual perceptual abilities, etc)

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

 

3. Reliability of each measure/test/tool

3.1a. Was intra-rater reliability determined?   � Yes � No � Not discussed

3.1b.Type of statistic used________; Value of statistic ________

 

3.2a. Was inter-rater reliability established? � Yes � No � Not discussed

3.2b. Type of statistic used_______ ; Value of statistic ________

 

3.3a. Was test-retest reliability determined?   � Yes � No � Not discussed

3.3b.Type of statistic used________; Value of statistic ________

 

3.4a. Was internal consistency reliability determined?

􀁻 Yes �No � Not discussed

3.4b.Type of statistic used________; Value of statistic ________

 

4. What was the overall reliability quality of the tests/measures/tools used in this study?

􀁻 Very poor   � Poor � Moderate � Good � Very good

 

5. Validity of each measure/test/tool

5.1a. Was face validity mentioned?     � Yes � No � Not discussed

5.1b. Type of information reported: ___________________________

 

5.2a. Was content validity mentioned? � Yes � No � Not discussed

5.2b Type of information reported: ___________________________

 

5.3a. Was concurrent validity reported? � Yes � No � Not discussed

5.3b. Type of information/statistics reported: ___________________

 

 

5.4a. Was predictive validity reported? � Yes � No � Not discussed

5.4b. Type of information reported: ___________________________

 

5.5a. Was construct validity mentioned? � Yes � No � Not discussed

5.5b. Type of information reported: ___________________________

 

5.6a. Was any other type of validity mentioned? � Yes � No � Not discussed

5.6b. Type of information reported: ___________________________

 

6. What was the overall validity quality of the tests/measures/tools used in this study?

􀁻 Very poor   � Poor 􀁻 Moderate � Good � Very good

 

Qualitative studies

 

7. Was the setting described? � Yes � No �

Comments_

• Southampton and Poole hospital in England were the suitable areas where the study was conducted.

8. What data gathering methods were used:

􀁻 Interview [specify] _____________________________________________

􀁻 Observation [specify]

• Improvements or any changes were noted and taken into account through use of hospital equipment

􀁻 Focus group

􀁻 Documents [specify] ___________________________________________

􀁻 Other [specify] ________________________________________________

 

 

9. Were the data gathering methods appropriate given the:

9a. Research purpose/aim/questions?    � Yes  � No

9b. Research methodology?                      � Yes  � No

9c. Participants and/or setting?                 � Yes  � No

9d. What was the rationale given for data collection method/s?

__________________________________________________________

 

10. Was there a complete description of the data gathering process and procedures?

10a. Length of data collection sessions  � Yes  � No  � Not discussed

10b. Number of data collection sessions �Yes  � No  � Not discussed

Comments

Data collection methods have been illustrated but the procedures and processes employed are not expounded

 

11. Data Format: [check all that apply]

􀁻 Transcript 􀁻 Tape recording 􀁻 Field notes 􀁻 Diary or journal

􀁻 Video, photographs or other visual media 􀁻 Documents 􀁻 Other, specify_____________ 􀁻 Not discussed

 

12. Were methods altered during study? 􀁻 Yes � No � Not discussed

If so, explain why_

• At one-point data was obtained through observation of the patient and another time through taking of minutes

13. Was saturation (data repetition) reached?

 

􀁻 Yes  � No � Not discussed

Please Comment

There was no “ceiling effect”

14. What trustworthiness methods were used? [check all that apply]

 

􀁻 Triangulation specify ______________ 􀁻 Member checking 􀁻 Peer review 􀁻 Prolonged engagement 􀁻 Expert Opinion

􀁻 Use of reflective diary 􀁻 Theory 􀁻 Existing literature 􀁻 Other, specify_____________ 􀁻 Not discussed / reported

 

15. Were the trustworthiness methods used appropriate given the research methodology/approach? � Yes � No

• The time the researches spent with the patients is considerably long; hence this trustworthiness technique is very appropriate.

 

• The intervention personnel that were in place are individuals with a vast amount of experience hence providing a credible and reliable source of data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

16. Overall rating of data gathering methods quality:

 

0          1          2          3          4          5         6          7          8          9          10

Very poor                                                                                           Excellent

For quantitative studies comment on the quality of the reliability and validity of the tests, measures, or tools used in the study. Consider looking for literature that has been published about the specific tools or referring to the specific test manual (if applicable).  You also might consider referring to the Mental Measurement Yearbook (an electronic database of test critiques available on the Monash database). Include at least 5 sentences here.   For qualitative studies comment on the rigour and appropriateness of the method/s for the research aim/question, methodology and participants. Check the literature on the methodology in relation to the data gathering methods used. Use your own words and include your thoughts and opinions. Critique what you think are strengths and weaknesses about this component of the study. Include at least 5 sentences here.   ·         Observation and documentation from an experienced therapist with a vast amount of experience proofs to be very reliable and credible in the research. ·         The trustworthiness of their data is significantly higher than that of regular staff. ·         These methods of data collection suit the participants in place and the researchers conducting the study. ·         The two -centre prospective technique encompassed allocation of individuals to random subgroups that were either interventional or routine-oriented. ·         Randomization, in my view, proofs to be weaker when a sample is tampered with. ·         Therefore, it is wise to consider an appropriate data collecting method that upholds the appropriateness of the data collected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Statistical Analysis [Quantitative only]

 

1. Methods checklist [check all statistical methods reported]

 

􀁻 Bonferroni 􀁻 Chi-square 􀁻 Chronbach’s Alpha Coefficient 􀁻 Kappa 􀁻 Kruskal Wallis 􀁻 Binomial Test 􀁻 Mann-Whitney-U 􀁻 Binomial Test 􀁻 T-test [specify type] _________ 􀁻 Wilcoxon-Signed Rank Test 􀁻 Z-test

􀁻 Estimation – confidence intervals 􀁻 Factor analysis 􀁻 Regression [specify type] _________ 􀁻 ANOVA 􀁻 MANCOVA 􀁻 MANOVA 􀁻 ICC (Intraclass correlation) 􀁻 Pearson correlation 􀁻 Spearman correlation 􀁻 Kendall’s tau-b correlation 􀁻 Other [specify] _________

 

2. What level(s) of data were obtained in the study [check all that apply]

______ Nominal

______ Ordinal

______ Interval

 

3. What was the type of data obtained in the study?

______ Non-parametric

______ Parametric

______ Other, please specify

 

 

4. What was the purpose of the data analyses used in the study?

______ Descriptive

______ Test of Association / Correlation

______ Test of Difference

______ Test of Predictiveness

______ Other, please specify _______________________________

 

5. Are the statistical analyses utilised in the study appropriate for the level of data gathered? � Yes � No

 

6. Missing data

6a. Was there a discussion about item non-response? � Yes � No

6b. Was there a discussion about loss to follow-up?    � Yes  􀁻 No

6c. How many participants were lost to follow-up? ___________________

6d. Were data imputed?      � Yes � No   � Not discussed

 

7. Group equivalence: was matching or equivalence discussed? � Yes � No

 

8. Overall rating of the statistical methods quality (if applicable):

 

0          1          2          3          4          5         6          7          8          9          10

Very poor                                                                                           Excellent

 

 

 

1. Data Analysis [Qualitative Only]

 

1. Was there a complete description of the data analysis process and procedures? Yes  � No

 

2. Who was involved in the data analysis? Please comment.

 

• The two subgroups were involved; interventional and routine group. The experts were also incorporated into the analysis procedure.

 

3. Data analysis methods [check all that apply]

 

􀁻 Coding and categorising 􀁻 Thematic 􀁻 Content 􀁻 Open coding 􀁻 Axial coding

􀁻 Phenomenological [specify type] ____ 􀁻 Narrative [specify type] ____________ 􀁻 Participatory 􀁻 Other, please specify _Ordinal method with non-parametric tests

 

3. Was original research aim/question answered? � Yes � No Comments

• It was discovered that increased intensity of therapy hastened the process of independence achievement

 

4. Are the findings supported by data (e.g. verbatim responses of participants from interviews/field notes, survey results)?

􀁻 Yes 􀁻 No Comments

• The patients under intervention groups were discharged earlier than those in routine groups

5)Are conflicting data discussed? � Yes  � No Comments

• No contradictory data have been addressed

6. Did the researcher(s) discuss the impact of their role(s) on data analysis?

􀁻 Yes  � No Comments_

There is no impact outlined in the study

 

7. Did the use of qualitative methods lead to obtaining the stakeholders’ views and

expression of the themes and concepts they stressed.

􀁻 Yes  � No � Not discussed

Comments

The projected outcome of reduced hospital stay was achieved.

 

 

8. What trustworthiness methods were used? [check all that apply]

 

􀁻 Triangulation of researchers 􀁻 Member checking 􀁻 Peer review 􀁻 Prolonged engagement 􀁻 Expert Opinion

􀁻 Use of reflective diary 􀁻 Theory 􀁻 Existing literature 􀁻 Other, please specify_____________ 􀁻 Not discussed

 

9. Were the trustworthiness methods used appropriate given the research methodology/approach? � Yes � No 10. Overall rating of qualitative study level of rigor quality (if applicable):

 

0          1          2          3          4          5         6          7          8          9          10

Very poor                                                                                           Excellent

If applicable, comment on the rigor and appropriateness of the analysis method for the methodology and qualitative data in the study. Use your own words and include your thoughts and opinions. Critique what you think are strengths and weaknesses about this component of the study. Include at least 5 sentences here. ·         Analysis of data focussed on identifying differences between routine groups and interventional groups ·         The analysis method used suits this kind of data for the data is limited to fewer subjects. ·         Non-parametric tests also aid in avoiding assumptions regarding qualitative data. ·         For a good result, the data analysis was done four ways in Poole hospital. ·         Several statistical comparisons were made in with two ways and four-way comparisons made using Bonferroni correction for multiple groups. ·         To obtain this, the result was obtained by multiplying nominal alpha and degrees of freedom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Results/Findings

 

1a. What were the main results /findings of the study? [list all below]

• Increased intensity of therapy reduced hospital stay.
• Interventional therapy leads to the achievement of quick independence and improved motor skills with time.
• Standard therapy delivered over a short period as practised in Poole hospital ensured that patients were discharged earlier from the hospital.
• Subjects in Poole were released earlier at a median stay of 62 days more first than those in Southampton hospital.

 

1b. Were the results reported in terms of statistical significance?

􀁻 Yes � No � Not addressed   � Not applicable

 

1c. Were all themes/categories and subthemes/subcategories addressed?

􀁻 Yes   No � Not addressed   � Not applicable

1d. Were the results reported clearly? �Not clear �Somewhat clear �Very clear

1e. Was the importance of the results to practice reported?

􀁻 Yes   No � Not addressed

Please comment below:

• Mann-Whitney U examined the level of independence- tests during admission, and there was no more significant variance between the routine and intervention groups, but as time passed by a more significant difference was observed. Therefore, this proofs that result obtained were helpful.
• The Poole subjects were more dependent on sphincter control on admission as compared to the Southampton group, but during discharge, it was the Southampton group that was more dependent on sphincter control hence displaying the importance of increased intensity of treatment
• Patients in Poole hospital were discharged at a median of 62 days earlier than those in Southampton hospital hence the importance of these results is shown

 

• Overall rating of result(s) quality (if applicable):

 

0   1          2          3          4          5         6          7          8          9          10

Very poor                                                                                    Excellent

For quantitative studies comment on the results in the study. Were the results statistically significant? If there were multiple outcomes, was that taken into consideration for the statistical analyses? For qualitative studies comment on the findings.  What were the implications of the findings to practice? Use your own words and include your thoughts and opinions. Critique what you think are strengths and weaknesses about this component of the study. Include at least 4 sentences here. ·         The findings obtained illustrated that with intervention that has increased intensity, the discharge from hospitals such as Poole was at a median of 62 days earlier than the subjects in Southampton who were discharged after 131 days   ·         Increased intervention promoted early attainment of independence as compared to the dependence state during admission   ·         The findings show that weekly interventions at Poole are averaged at 580 minutes weekly as compared to 402 in Southampton. Therefore, the significant difference proofs to be important in attainment of independence over many bodily functions like self-care   ·         With these findings the health industry is able to minimize on wastage of resources that are directed to weaker methods of interventions.   ·         The capability of this study to project these results means that the findings are a milestone in the health sector   ·         The only problem is that the findings are based on a small sample that is not representative of a larger population

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Technical Details of Reported Results / Findings

 

Quantitative

Qualitative

1a. Graphs / figures used? � Yes � No 1b. Results given in tables? � Yes �No 1c. Results presentation [check all that were reported as part of the results] � means � percentages � standard deviation � correlations � odds ratios � regression coefficients � Confidence intervals � p-values � medians � standard errors � variances �  Inter Quartile Ranges � Other [specify] _____________ 1d. Were effect sizes reported? 􀁻 Yes � No Please specify if reported ________________________________

.2a Graphs or figures used? 􀁻 Yes � No 2b. Results given in tables? 􀁻 Yes 􀁻 No 2c. Conceptual model presented? 􀁻 Yes � No 2d. Narrative summary of thematic results provided?     􀁻 Yes � No 2e. Participants’ quotes used? 􀁻Yes � No 2f. Other [specify] Tables and figures used __________________

 

4. Results Format: �Not effective �Somewhat effective �Very effective
5. Overall rating of results quality:

 

0          1          2          3          4          5         6          7          8          9          10

Very poor                                                                                           Excellent

 

• The results are well covered and displayed by use of figures and tables that clearly display the correlation of statistics in Poole and Southampton
• Interventions put in place are listed in tables with the scores obtained listed at the ends in both hospitals for the routine and intervention group
• Mean, standard deviation and variance demographic information are well illustrated in the tables
• The figures show a greater difference between admission functionality and independence as compared between Poole and Southampton

 

1. Conclusion

 

1a. Was there a statement of conclusions given? �Yes �No

1b. What were the main conclusions of the study [list all]

Please comment below:

After a patient receives intensive care after a brain injury the rate of recuperation increases.

Subjects who healed earlier were discharged faster than the others who delayed.

The is no identified “ceiling effect” in the study

Studies that aim at reducing the cost of therapy are needed for in patients

1c. Were the conclusions reported accurately and clearly?

􀁻No   �omewhat    �ery

1d. Were the conclusions appropriate given the study aim, design, methods and results /findings reported?  �Yes �No

1e. What are the implications of the conclusions for occupational therapy practice?

Please comment below:

Improved care to the brain injury patients

Reduced length of stay in hospital

Improved level of independence

Easy work for the therapists is achieved as more patients are discharged from the facilities

2. Overall rating of conclusions quality:

0          1          2          3          4          5         6          7          8          9          10

Very poor                                                                                           Excellent

SHAPE  * MERGEFORMAT
N. Limitations Cited by Authors

1. Were study limitations discussed? �Yes � No
2. Quantitative Study Limitations

2a. Potential Biases                                                􀁻 Yes �No �Not clearly stated

2b. Confounding variables                                    􀁻 Yes �No �Not clearly stated

2c. Internal validity                                       􀁻 Yes �No �Not clearly stated

2d. External validity                                                 􀁻 Yes �No �Not clearly stated

2e. Power related to sample size  �Yes �No �Not clearly stated

2f.  Experiment wide error                          􀁻 Yes �No �Not clearly stated

2g. Sampling method used                        􀁻 Yes �No �Not clearly stated

2h. Limited generalisability                                    �Yes �No �Not clearly stated

2g. Others [please specify] ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Qualitative Study Limitations

3a. Did the researcher(s) discuss the impact of their role(s) on study design?

􀁻 Yes � No; Comments_____________________________________

3b. Did the researcher(s) discuss the impact of their role(s) on study recruitment? �Yes � No; Comments________________________________

3c. Did the researcher(s) discuss the impact of their role(s) on data collection?

􀁻 Yes � No; Comments_____________________________________

3d. Did the researcher(s) discuss ethical issues raised by the study?

􀁻 Yes �No they  raised concern over acquisition of consent from next of kin

3e. Ethical issues discussed [check all that apply]

􀁻 Privacy

􀁻 Confidentiality

􀁻 Security

􀁻 Risk

􀁻 Institutional Review Board

3f. Was credibility discussed or was there evidence of credibility (participants’ judgment of believability of results)?

􀁻 Yes �No

3g. Was transferability discussed or was there evidence of this being achievable (application of the research to other groups)?

􀁻 Yes �No

3h. Was dependability discussed or was there evidence of dependability (the influence of setting and context on the results)? �Yes �No

3i. Was confirmability discussed or was there evidence of confirmability (how were the results checked)?

􀁻 Yes �No

3j. Other issues of rigor [specify]

_The unrepresentativeness of the study population was deemed to be a problem_____________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

4. Overall rating of acknowledgement of limitations quality related to either quantitative or qualitative study:

0          1          2          3          4          5         6          7          8          9          10

Very poor                                                                                           Excellent

SHAPE  * MERGEFORMAT

 

O. Summary of Quality Scores and Reviewers’ Comments (transfer your score ratings from each of the preceding sections on the MOTCREF to this page) #Quality Rating Category Score / 101Study Aim / Purpose Quality Comments: 102Study Literature Review Quality Comments: 93Quantitative or Qualitative Study Design Quality Comments: 104Study Sampling Methods Quality Comments: 85Intervention(S) Quality (if applicable) Comments: 106Data Gathering Methods Quantitative and Qualitative Quality Comments: 97Statistical Methods Quality (if applicable) Comments: 108Qualitative Study Data Analysis Quality (if applicable) Comments: 99Results/Findings Quality