*this was my topic*Write a critical appraisal that demonstrates comprehension of two quantitative research studies. Use the “Research Critique Guidelines – Part II” document to organize your essay. Successful completion of this assignment requires that you provide a rationale, include examples, and reference content from the study in your responses.Use the practice problem and two quantitative, peer‐reviewed research articles you identified in the Topic 1 assignment to complete this assignment.*I HAVE ATTACHED THE PAPER AND AN EXAMPLE OF THE CORRECT TEMPLATE IT NEEDS TO BE IN*


Unformatted Attachment Preview

Using findings of quantitative studies
The article entitled Name of this study should be here (Haque, 2017). Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240906/ is purposed to identify the beliefs of
the patients and also realities of the clinic on insulin which appears to be a barrier to diabetes
type 2 patients when initiating the treatment. It is here where the information was given was later
used to come up with a cross-cultured valued education as a patient’s tool to provide enlightening
and medical based statements that address the barriers as mentioned above. The article is
relevant because it displays situations signaling incidence of clinicians delaying administration
of insulin until it is crucial that other therapy alternatives are performed and fail to balance
glycemic levels. The research query here is; what are the barriers existing in initiating insulin to
patients with diabetes mellitus type 2?
My second article is (Benroubi, 2018). Retrieved from
http:/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5964885 that utters on the increasing patients
with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are progressively taking therapy for insulin, and despite the
potency from the therapy, most of the patient hub suboptimal glycemic controls. This article
forth with studies touching on themes with intents of exploring experiences and views of
individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus and healthcare physicians on insulin usage and its
management. This has been used in the context of primary care. The study is critical to nursing
as it reveals various barriers to optimized insulin usage in the primary care at both the health care
professional and patient level. Thus, get insight on the need for quick multimodal interventions
that will improve competencies inclusive of knowledge and skills of insulin dosing to diabetic
patients. The core question for research in this article is what the perceptions of insulin usage in
type diabetes patients in their primary care are?
(Haque, 2017). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240906/
is closely related to my Picot question as it argues on the various reasons the health professionals
inclusive of physicians, clinicians are at relaxing mode for administering insulin; a phenomenon
called psychological insulin resistance. It claims that physicians might delay insulin
administration up to the time it is crucial after alternative therapies are performed and accrued
failure for maintaining control of the glycemic levels. (Benroubi, 2018). Retrieved from
http:/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5964885 supports the issue in question by
emphasizing on crucialness of administering insulin to those who have diabetes type 2. It
furthers the topic by stating clearly the importance of basal insulin which means taking quick or
longer time insulin forms in attempts to maintain the blood sugar levels in control. The themes
integrate the comparison and interventions groupings in the articles to one identified in the
PICOT query by synthesizing two frameworks which form 12 main themes expressed in three
domains. There are patient perceptions, HCP-patient relation and lastly HCP perceptions. To
illustrate this, there is theme 1; insulin-related beliefs that take perceptions from both the
physicians and the patients. The data best shows these beliefs inclusive of culture, and severity of
the illness. The second theme is social influences that include family, friends, economics, and the
activities of the society in general. All these among others have intervened in comparison
purposes hence identifying with my PICOT question.
(Haque, 2017). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240906/
has put into practice a specific method in this study. Here, there were 13 groups (focus) carried
in five countries namely Sweden, Germany, United Kingdom, United States of America and The
Netherlands. The data was based on attitudes on insulin therapy from diabetes type 2 patients for
individuals aged 18 years whose healthcare profession had earlier recommended starting insulin
treatment in the past around six months. In addition to this, four clinical professionals were in the
interview panel board that interviewed in an attempt to ascertain obstacles they had experienced
in starting the patient-insulin injection process. One benefit accrued from the focus group is its
reaction for the participants and immediate feedback and also ideas meant to improve on various
concepts or strategy. In this method of research, there needed trying as much as possible not be
biased because it might end up impacting either positively or negatively on the discussion
objectives. The intentional or inadvertent injected bias would have led to inaccurate results.
In (Benroubi, 2018). Retrieved from
http:/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5964885, the method used was based on
systematic electronic database search. It had Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE,
PsycINFO, CINAHL, and also Web of Sciences performed on the year 2014 October 1st. The
updates for the study were done on 31st March year 2015, in attempts to identify studies which
shown the views plus experiences of those adults exhibiting diabetes type 2. It is worth noting
that the studies that met the review included criterion and were appraised later using CASP
qualitative researches checking list or had an alternative of using Barley checklist for designs of
the survey. The themes were synthesis collected for the study. The interview elicited face to face
question and reply hence a primary source of information hailing from patient and physician
experience in the topic in question. This meant no bias thus accurate results for the study. The
limitation for the interview method of this research was resistant from the patients to participate
in the activity has some feared intrusion of their privacy in their health statuses.
Basing on the data, (Haque, 2017). Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240906/, the ten queries on the most critical
barriers were generated. The healthcare clinician panel board then generated accurate and
unbiased responses that addressed the education tool and concerns. Questions on initiating
insulin: clinical realities, misconceptions, and myths on insulin were drafted. This drafted tool
was assumed as a pilot test in the patient group and later finalized.
http:/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5964885 had its results out of the thirty-four
studies selected. Of these, only 12 had integrated qualitative interviews whereby nine were held
with patients and 3 with the professionals in health care. 22 out of 34 were based on surveys
whereby 14 were with patients and five with both mixes of patient and clinicians while the last
three were taken by the healthcare professionals only. There were themes identified, 12 in
number which later formed domains; the perception by the patient, by the healthcare
professionals, and patient-healthcare professional relations. Both two chosen studies impacted
will impact the nursing profession whereby both the healthcare expert and the patient will be
enlightened on various aspect regarding diabetes and related aspects like insulin and its
administration with the core goal of managing the diabetes condition. This is a positive aspect
since it relieves government in its budgetary allocation in dealing with the menace affecting its
Conclusively, the objectives of both studies were with the first study having thematic
saturation relevant to the core aim of the PICOT question and the other one the strategy
appraised eligibility of the PICOT question. (Word count-1127. This word count is correct as it
is below the maximum count of 1250 words. Good job!)
(Haque, 2017). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240906/
(Benroubi, 2018). Retrieved from http:/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5964885
Rough Draft-Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations
The first paragraph should state the brief description of the project topic. Use the practice
problem and two quantitative, peer‐reviewed research studies you identified in the Topic 1
assignment to complete this assignment. Everything highlighted in yellow should be removed
from the paper after all of the sections have been written completely.}
Background of Study
Clearly identify the clinical problem of the study. What is not known about the clinical
problem, if understood, would improve health care delivery or patient outcome? The gap in
knowledge is the clinical problem. What is the significance of the study that makes the reader
care about this study, ie, human suffering, costs of treatment or number of people affected by the
clinical problem? Identify the purpose of the study in that the goals, objectives or aims of the
study are stated by the researcher. State the main research question that the results of the study
were meant to answer. If the main research question is not stated, then what question is inferred
in the study. Finally, are the purpose and the research question related to the clinical problem?
Methods of Study
What are the benefits and risks to the participants of this study? Did the participants give
informed consent and did they participate voluntarily? Clearly identify the individual
independent variables and the dependent variables. What method was used to collect the data?
When was this study performed? Briefly describe the sequence of data collection without using
too much descriptive verbiage to maintain the word range limit. How was the data analyzed?
What tool was used? How was rigor of research process assured? What measures were utilized to
minimize researcher bias? For instance, did two or more researchers independently analyze the
Results of Study
What were the study findings? Briefly state them clearly and concisely. Are the findings
valid? What limitations of the study were identified by the researchers? How do the results
impact change in nursing practice? What is the opportunity for future nursing research of this
Outcome Comparison
What are the anticipated outcomes for your PICOT question? How do the outcomes of
your chosen articles compare to your anticipated outcomes?
Give a brief “wind-up” of this paper in no more than 4-6 sentences. State the thesis
statement of the study. Integrate summary of the knowledge learned from the study. Keep in
mind that the total word count for this assignment is 1000- 1250 words. There should be four
references at least on the reference list which should start on the next page. See the next page for
that template and the APA guidelines which are in the resources section of the course shell.
Arnold, J. B., & Dodge, H. W. (1994). Room for all. The American School Board Journal,
181(10), 22-26.
Black, J. A., & English, F. W. (1986). What they don’t tell you in schools of education about
school administration. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
Daresh, J. C. (2004). Beginning the assistant principalship: A practical guide for new school
administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
King, M., & Blumer, I. (2000). A good start. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(5), 356-360.
Lecture 1. (2013). UNV-103: University Success. Phoenix, AZ: Grand Canyon University.
Seventeen moments in Soviet history. (n.d.). Retrieved from

Purchase answer to see full

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code ESSAYHELP