COVID-19 Infection as Common Public Health Problem

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
CASP Tool’s Critical Assessment of Qualitative Research
The Worth of the Research Study
Conclusion
References

Introduction

A new public health issue plagues communities every day, making it one of the most pressing matters facing modern civilization today. Furthermore, it has been found that the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) infection is a widespread public health issue that can affect people of all ages and genders in today’s global society (Gorna et al., 2021). This study critically evaluates a qualitative research article by Roberts et al. (2021). It discusses the prevalence of COVID-19 infection in the population, the physical and psychological happenings, and how social isolation can benefit and harm those living with the virus. This discussion board posting attempts to evaluate a qualitative study critically using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program’s (CASP) checklist. The critical evaluation gives health professionals the ability to assess evidence in studies properly to avoid presuming that all study published in scientific periodicals has worth and validity. Healthcare professionals make well-informed judgments about patients ‘ values and care using the most current evidence, clinical expertise, and patient preferences.

CASP Tool’s Critical Assessment of Qualitative Research

Roberts et al. (2021) explored the fundamentals of living with COVID-19. Their study aimed to understand what it is like to be infected and live with the disease. Nurses and other health care workers should be responsive to the experiences of the hospitalized and those who do not need hospitalization to adequately aid persons infected with COVID-19.

Yes, the qualitative technique of the study was suitable. Qualitative research aims to understand better the perspectives and experiences of people involved in the study. This form of analysis could only be conducted in the humanities and social sciences until recently. Qualitative research is currently precious in other fields, such as medicine (Sawatsky et al., 2019). Developing themes, experiences, viewpoints, and tales from qualitative research provides a deeper insight into the world than can be acquired by statistical analysis. When it comes to putting theory into action, ‘life experiences’ like these are invaluable. Theoretical frameworks are like the foundation of a home; without a basis, the structure itself cannot be supported. The researchers explained the methodology of the study in a manner that eases its understanding. Siedlecki (2020) found that the qualitative method is appropriate for discussing human experiences and perspectives on a specific topic. As a result, phenomenology research is an excellent tool for gaining insight into participants’ brains.

The research design was suited to the purpose of the study. The researchers employed a phenomenology study approach to learn more about how the effects of COVID-19 feel. According to the research by Dodgson (2019), in a qualitative study approach, understanding the opinions of the participants and researchers is quite important. In this procedure, phenomenological analysis is instrumental since it allows the researchers’ interpretive views to be combined with the facts from their participants. Even on the level of measurement, the tested methodology does not allow for the collection of numerical data. In other words, drawing concepts from statistical information is not a good idea.

Yes, the study’s aim necessitated an adequate recruitment approach, and the researchers determined the best way for selecting participants. Snowball sampling proceeded until all of the data had been gathered, at which point it was considered complete (Roberts et al., 2021). Participants were able to share their personal stories through the snowball technique. Only the sort of sample method used was mentioned in the paper, which did not go into further detail. Furthermore, the publication did not define the sample setting. The sample was presumably taken from a hospital in a facility center with inpatient and outpatient patients in the same building. Within the first phase of the COVID-19 epidemic, the researchers employed a phenomenological study approach and interviewed 14 people aged 18 and older.

Thirteen non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients and a hospitalized patient who was not on oxygen therapy were interviewed for the data analysis (Roberts et al., 2021). Attributable to a continuing intervention, the participants may draw on their own experiences (presumptively from the qualitative method). Some participants choose not to participate, and it is not clear why. Because the manner of selecting the sample was a snowball approach, it is assumed that all participants knew each other. Current participants invite new contributors to join the study through a referral-type program in this method. The study’s inclusion of the vast majority of the general hospital’s patients has additional ramifications. Participants who elected not to participate were presumably unknown to those who participated (and therefore not invited). They were probably newly admitted to the hospital or had not yet been integrated into its usual patient population.

Yes, all the necessary information was gathered to tackle the research problem. An in-depth interview strategy was used to collect all the data needed to understand the encounter of those infected with COVID-19 (Roberts et al., 2021). The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with participants as a part of this study. Colaizzi’s phenomenological descriptive analysis method was employed for the qualitative technique in this study. Because of the COVID-19 restrictions, telephone discussions were used to interview adults with COVID-19 who were 18 years of age or older. Their feedback was transcribed, and open-ended interview queries on the experience were issued before inquiries about the data (Roberts et al., 2021). The research ranged from 20 minutes to an hour in length for the interviews.

The subjects completed a demographic questionnaire where only gender and age were included in possible risk factors. All data was encoded to safeguard the anonymity of the participants, ensuring the confidentiality of the study. Data from phenomenological studies were analyzed using Colaizzi’s technique (Roberts et al., 2021). Participation by a peer debriefer ensured the data was accurate in the analysis. Authenticity was guaranteed with member-checking by the participants. The team sifted through the data until a few common threads emerged. Study participants shared physical experiences that affected their health and perception of well-being. There was a feeling of overwhelming exhaustion, a loss of smell and taste, and neurological/muscular problems. The available research corroborates the claimed experiences.

The researchers and participants have established a clearly defined relationship. In light of this, it is fair to say that the researchers spent a significant amount of time getting to know the participants before beginning the interview procedure. The researchers started the study after the data saturation point had been reached to reduce study bias. According to Assarroudi et al. (2018), qualitative content analysis can be done in three ways: conventionally, directed, or summative. Because a framework was used to guide the information analysis in this study, the strategy used is the directed approach. The article outlines the data sources used by the researchers during their investigation.

The Institutional Review Board and the ethical committees of the necessary institution and the hospital did not give their approval to the research proposal or the data collection method. However, each subject was allowed to provide their informed consent. All participants’ names were kept private and secret during their participation in the study’s duration. The privacy law mandates that study participants’ discretion and confidentiality be protected. The ethics committee and the institution that shortlists the subjects should also provide their consent before any human study may begin (Weinhardt, 2020). As a result, it is possible that the authors did not adhere strictly to the research’s ethical standards.

The data analysis procedure was described in detail; it was adequately rigorous. With Colaizzi’s technique, detailed interviews conducted per a semi-structured consultative guide yielded qualitative data (audio recordings). Selecting a striking statement as a theme has been covered in full in this article. According to Aguas (2022), the data analysis approach developed by Colaizzi aids in the impartial interpretation of qualitative research findings. Thus, the authors were able to describe the data analysis in detail. However, the researcher neglected to use a tabular representation of concept generation, preventing a quick overview of theme generation. The study’s reliability and validity were improved by conducting independent analyses of each theme related to patients’ experiences.

Yes, the researcher offered a clear statement of the findings. In addition, the researcher discussed the validity and triangulation of the participants’ responses. More than one researcher carried out data analysis and the creation of themes, ensuring triangulation and decreasing the risk of bias (Siedlecki, 2020). It was decided to return to the original study question to discuss the findings. The findings were based on the research purpose and fitted within the study’s scope.

People who have COVID-19 report similar emotional, psychological, and physical symptoms. According to current research findings, as the disease control methods, isolation and quarantine can have both positive and negative results (Roberts et al., 2021). Covid-19’s lived experience, as discussed in this study, is consistent with previous research. Such studies show that social isolation can have long-term psychological and physical impacts, including anxiety and sadness; well-documented in the scientific literature. The psychological impacts of seclusion, sense of helplessness, and embarrassment can severely impact patients’ coping capacity and self-esteem when they contract a highly infectious new virus. Neuromuscular repercussions resulting from the unique virus’s bodily impact have necessitated the compassionate understanding of carers.

Caregivers can offer a range of techniques to lessen the virus’s lasting effects. This encompasses evaluating the ability to exercise in a safe and comfortable environment and exposure to environmental and sensory stimulation, including radio, TV, computers, and other digital devices (Roberts et al., 2021). Virtual visits with loved ones might help alleviate feelings of loneliness and isolation.

For people who have been diagnosed with COVID-19, nurse practitioners (NPs) can help them find resources and provide continuing support for them and their families. For individuals with COVID-19 or those who have suffered COVID-19, NPs can aid in establishing systems that enable access for patients and access to care for health care professionals. Moreover, among patients with COVID-19, NPs can use telemedicine as a safe substitute for traditional in-person care (Roberts et al., 2021). Patients with COVID-19 who are confined to their homes may benefit from services such as episodic care, psychological counseling, wellness evaluations, and education. Individuals, households, and communities can benefit from NPs’ knowledge of the COVID-19 virus and the steps they can take to combat its effects.

Even though the study’s findings and value are only of limited use in clinical settings, they are crucial in nursing practice. There is a growing consensus among health care experts that the concepts and environments in which care is provided can promote both harmful and positive patterns of care. The study also acknowledges that most medical students are reluctant to criticize unfavorable care cultures in their practice areas (Roberts et al., 2021). It was agreed upon that there are theoretical connections between the values of compassion, adaptability, and emotional intelligence in nursing education. The study did not address whether the research may be applied to other medical sectors besides nursing.

A peer debriefer was used in this study to verify the authenticity and reliability of the data. After each data collection interval, analysis and discussions were performed to see if data saturation had been achieved. Saturation in data collection is reached when the research scientist is no longer getting new information and has decided to stop collecting data (Guest et al., 2020). One of the study’s drawbacks, according to the authors, was the tiny sample size. As saturation approaches in qualitative research, the sample size is not known. There is no way of knowing whether the uniformity of the study’s sample affected the results. Despite the researchers’ claims that their findings might be generalized, this was an anticipated study limitation.

According to the researchers, study findings will help policymakers better create treatment and management policies for COVID-19. From the viewpoint of this particular phenomenon, the used PARIHS (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) model is sound. Although the study did not include all of PARIHS’s sub-categories, it went beyond the framework’s foundations to find and propose more sub-groups. The results show that people diagnosed with COVID-19 can alleviate their unpleasant feelings by additional treatments (Roberts et al., 2021). The findings sparked further studies into the paradigm itself as a model for knowledge translation.

The study was conducted when the epidemic was in its early stages. Potential participants were reluctant to participate in the study due to their apprehension of being interviewed. The fear of social stigma and the embarrassment of being diagnosed with COVID-19 made people hesitant to confess they had been diagnosed (Roberts et al., 2021). Nurses who treat patients infected with COVID-19 will benefit from the participants’ experiences. In the future, researchers should do a follow-up study on health care providers who have been infected with COVID-19 and the protracted effects of the condition on their mental health.

The Worth of the Research Study

Negative caring behaviors are expected in medical settings, and patients have complained about a lack of professionalism in their care. Nurses can learn from this study’s findings what contributes to subpar patient care and what they can do to improve it. Patients and family members expect compassionate treatment when they are in the hospital and rely on others to look after them (Su et al., 2020). As a result, nurses should exhibit behavior and attitudes that demonstrate compassion and optimism. One of the nursing tenets has been that those who cannot care for themselves should be treated with kindness and respect.

Caring begins the moment the patient and the caregiver come into contact. To arrive at an accurate diagnosis and the most suitable course of treatment, nurses who exhibit a caring and conscientious demeanor build trust with their patients (McClelland & Vogus, 2021). The study is useful in nursing since it aims to define and explain nurses’ caring behaviors. It has been shown that the following methods are effective in fostering healthy working relationships: being friendly, chatting, and schmoozing patients on a personal level, encouraging them, and reassuring them while still maintaining professional standards.

Conclusion

In today’s global society, COVID-19 infection is a common public health problem affecting people of all ages and genders. This discussion board post critically evaluates a qualitative study using the CASP checklist. Healthcare professionals make well-informed decisions about patients ‘ values and care using the most current evidence, clinical expertise, and patient preferences. Patients infected with COVID-19 should be helped by nurses and other health care workers who are sensitive to their experiences. The snowball sampling in the study was considered finished when all of the data had been collected. For this study, researchers spoke with 13 patients who were not hospitalized for COVID-19 and 1 hospitalized patient who was not receiving oxygen therapy. NPs can assist those diagnosed with COVID-19 by pointing them in the direction of available resources and offering ongoing support to them and their loved ones. NPs’ knowledge of the COVID-19 virus and the steps they can take to combat its effects can benefit individuals, households, and communities. Future studies should look at the long-term effects of COVID-19 on the psychological wellbeing of health care workers who have been infected.

References

Aguas, P. P. (2022). Fusing approaches in educational research: Data collection and data analysis in phenomenological research. The Qualitative Report, 27(1), 1-20. Web.

Assarroudi, A., Heshmati Nabavi, F., Armat, M. R., Ebadi, A., & Vaismoradi, M. (2018). Directed qualitative content analysis: The description and elaboration of its underpinning methods and data analysis process. Journal of Research in Nursing, 23(1), 42-55. Web.

Dodgson, J. E. (2019). Reflexivity in qualitative research. Journal of Human Lactation, 35(2), 220-222. Web.

Gorna, R., MacDermott, N., Rayner, C., O’Hara, M., Evans, S., Agyen, L., Nutland, W., Rogers, N., & Hastie, C. (2021). Long COVID guidelines need to reflect lived experience. The Lancet, 397(10273), 455-457. Web.

Guest, G., Namey, E., & Chen, M. (2020). A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PloS One, 15(5), 1-17. Web.

McClelland, L. E., & Vogus, T. J. (2021). Infusing, sustaining, and replenishing compassion in health care organizations through compassion practices. Health Care Management Review, 46(1), 55-65. Web.

Roberts, M. E., Knestrick, J., & Resick, L. (2021). The lived experience of COVID-19. The Journal for Nurse Practitioner, 17(7), 828–832. Web.

Sawatsky, A. P., Ratelle, J. T., & Beckman, T. J. (2019). Qualitative research methods in medical education. Anesthesiology, 131(1), 14-22. Web.

Siedlecki, S. L. (2020). Understanding descriptive research designs and methods. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 34(1), 8-12. Web.

Su, J. J., Masika, G. M., Paguio, J. T., & Redding, S. R. (2020). Defining compassionate nursing care. Nursing Ethics, 27(2), 480-493. Web.

Weinhardt, M. (2020). Ethical issues in the use of big data for social research. Historical Social Research, 45(3), 342-368. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!