RESEARCH CRITIQUE 1
The research carried by Yilmaz et al. (2013) is qualitative study.The authors conducted a descriptive study to identify the factorsthat lead to women considering either virginal or caesarean delivery.The study was carried out at Gynecology Department at the CerahpasaMedical Facility. The objectives that the researchers sought toaddress did not require any experimental actions and the authors didnot have to manipulate the environment (Yilmaz et al., 2013). IRBdefines any descriptive study as any research that can provideinformation about a naturally occurring health status as wells thefactors in the environment that affect it (Nassaji, 2015). For thisstudy, a descriptive study was the most appropriate.
To measure the variables, the authors collected data usingwell-designed questionnaires. The authors involved three experts indesigning the questions that were a true reflection the objectives ofthe study. To valid the questionnaire, the experts conducted a pilotstudy involving fifteen women. The questionnaire included the aspectsof demography, preference for both cesarean or virginal delivery andthe obstetric characteristics. To quantify the final results theauthors employed the Statistical Package for Social Sciences. Theyalso used the chi-test, Fisher’s Exact Test and the LogicalRegression Analysis on the factors that influences women’s choiceof the method of delivery (Yilmaz et al., 2013).
The study population involved women who visited the GynecologyDepartment at the Cerahpasa Medical Facility. All the women hadeither come for the first or subsequent delivery. However, to curbany bias for the preference of the caesarean method, all the womenwho had undergone the process as a result of medical complicationbefore were excluded from the study. As noted by the authors in thebackground o the study, the number of caesarean deliveries has beensoaring, and the primary objective of the study was to identify thefactors that led to the heightened preference.
To ensure the uniformity of the study and collection of credibledata, the authors set several cheeks for the sample characteristics.First, the sample had to be a true representation of the populationof women in Turkey. They used data from the Turkey Demographic andHealth Survey and settled for 861 women. Also, the participants wererequired not to have had any caesarean delivery as a result of amedical complication. Out of the 870 sample, seven rejected to fillthe questionnaire while 23 failed to complete it. The authors,therefore, compiled the results of 840 women. 564 of the women had apreference for normal virginal delivery while 276 had a strongpreference for CS.
The authors employed non-probability sampling. In this form ofsampling, the group of participants the author arrives at is subjectto his/her purposive judgment and it is therefore non-random.Therefore, the authors targeted women who turned up in the hospitalfor reproductive serves provided they had not had a past cesareandelivery as a recommendation from the medical professional. FromMarch to August 2011, the researchers collected data on all the womenwho fulfilled their desired characteristics.
Before carrying out the research in the hospital, the author soughtthe persisting of Gynecology Department at the Cerahpasa MedicalFacility Ethics Committee since they involved human beings in thestudy (Yilmaz et al., 2013). The committee permitted the study withinthe premises. Also, the appearance of the article in the Iranian RedCrescent Medical Journal is proof that the research satisfied theentire research process and ethical requirement.
Sema is an associate professor of Gynecology and Obstetrics at SelcukUniversity in Konya. She has several peer-reviewed articles under hisname. Bal is a distinguished professor in the department of nursingat the University of Karamanoglu Mehmetbey in Karaman, Turkey.Conversely Beji is an associate professor of Gynaecology andObstetrics at te Florence Nightingale Faculty of the University ofIstanbul. Uludag is also an associate professor at Cerahpasa MedicalSchool of the University of Istanbul. Their authority in the field,as well as the numerous studies that have conducted, makes theirresearch credible.
In the research, the authors are not verbatim of the confidentialityand anonymity measures they employed for their research. However,there are very high chances that the requirement was fulfilled forthem to obtain the permission of the Hospital’s Ethics Committee.Also, the authors indicate that participants participated in thestudy on a voluntary basis. They had also identified a secure roomwhere the participants would fill the forms in privacy. Apart fromensuring that they did not suffer from any influence or intimidation,it also gave them the confidence to answer the questions. Only sevenof the identified participants turned down the request, and it meansthat 99% of the participants were comfortable with the study.
Finally, research may inform the participants of how they can obtainthe results of a study (Miller et al., 2012). The authors do notinclude information that can guide the participants on the fate ofthe results they obtain from the study.
Miller, T., Birch,M., Mauthner, M., & Jessop, J. (Eds.). (2012). Ethics inqualitative research. Sage.
Nassaji, H. (2015).Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis.Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 129-132.
Yilmaz, S. D., Bal,M. D., Beji, N. K., & Uludag, S. (2013). Women’s Preferences ofMethod of Delivery and Influencing Factors. Iranian Red CrescentMedical Journal, 15(8), 683.