ASSESSING RESEARCH PROCESS STEPS 1
The author clearly defines the research design of the study in theabstract and in the methodology part. LoGiudice (2015) used ameta-synthesis of qualitative case studies form of qualitativeapproach to implementing the approach. The Meta-synthesis analyzed 8articles (7 qualitative studies and 1 mixed method).
Methods used to measure variables
LoGiudice (2014) utilized the Noblit and Hare`s (1988) methodology tosynthesize the 8 texts. The research aimed to garner comprehension ofproviders’ acquaintance with prenatal screening and analyzed the 5identified themes using Noblit and Hare’s (1998) approach. However,the study only assessed what the 8 articles researched thus, did notmeasure variables.
Study and target population
The study analyzed intimate partner violence (IPV) thus, it focusedon healthcare providers’ familiarity with screening women for IPVas well as pregnant women experiencing IPV. However, LoGiudice(2015) does not study women per se in the study but studyhealthcare providers. In this regards, the study focused on pregnantwomen undergoing IPV but used healthcare providers such as certifiednurse midwives, midwives, nurse practitioners, or registered nursesto understand their experience in screening for IPV. As such, thestudy’s study population is healthcare providers.
The study used a sample size of 142 qualified women’s healthcaresuppliers from Sweden, USA, and New Zealand. The providers were agedbetween 26 and 74 years with a varied period in practice between 6months and 39 years. The providers sample comprised I registerednurse, 78 gynecologists/obstetrician, 13 licensed nurses (offeringprenatal care in the US), 47 midwives (offering care in New Zealandand Sweden), and 3 nurse specialists.
Sampling method used and sampling error
The study used a criterion-based sampling where LoGiudice(2015) utilized articles that only met the criteria such as the useof articles with qualitative or mixed method approaches, articlesthat examined providers’ experience of screening IPV, and articleswith research findings. Other criteria included articles written inEnglish and published on or after 2000 as well as omitted articlesthat studied screening outside the framework of prenatal care. Theauthor also used a critical case sampling approach to compare thedifferent information relayed by each study and then draw aconclusion based on the information. However, the criterion-basedapproach is the most apparent approach used. The study used anonprobability sampling method based on the criterion-based approach.LoGiudice (2015) relied on her judgment and the criteria shedeveloped to selecting the units of the study. On the other hand, thestudy does not mention or highlight any sampling errors.
Approval by Institutional Review Board
The IRB approved the study. It is worth notingthat the study was received on November 2013 and accepted on April2014. Moreover, the study dealt with human research thus, it wasimpossible to be publicized before being approved by IRB since allhuman subject studies must receive authorization from IRB.
Qualification of the researcher
Jenna LoGiudice is an assistant professor at Fairfield University, acertified nurse midwife, and has a PhD in Nursing thus, she wasqualified to conduct the research. Moreover, the validity part of theresearch notes that a doctorally prepared researcher reviewed thestudy.
Confidentiality for subjects
The study does not mention any provision for the privacy ornon-disclosure of the subjects, perhaps because it dealt with casestudies rather than primary samples.
Obtaining the results
The study does not mention how the participants can obtain theresults. The results of the study depended on 8 different articlesthus, there was no provision for participants to obtain the results.
LoGiudice, J. A. (2015). Prenatal screening for intimate partnerviolence: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Applied NursingResearch, 28(1), 2-9.