HLT 362 Article Analysis and Evaluation of Research Ethics Essay
HLT 362 Article Analysis and Evaluation of Research Ethics Essay
HLT 362 Article Analysis and Evaluation of Research Ethics Essay
Article Analysis and Evaluation of Research Ethics
Analysis of research articles provides nursing students with sufficient skills to develop a critical approach to application in clinical settings. Research ethics are fundamental to enhancing the credibility and reliability of evidence attained through such studies. The purpose of this paper is to analyze a research article and evaluate ethics associated with research, especially if the researchers complied with the required ethical provisions like informed consent from study subjects.
ORDER A CUSTOM PAPER NOW
| Article Citation and Permalink
(APA format) |
Article 1
Wong, H., Karaca, Z., & Gibson, T. B. (2018). A Quantitative Observational Study of Physician Influence on Hospital Costs. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing, 55, 0046958018800906. https://doi.org/10.1177/0046958018800906 |
| Point | Description |
| Broad Topic Area/Title | The article is a quantitative observational research on physicians’ effects on the overall care costs. |
| Problem Statement
(What is the problem research is addressing?) |
The cost of care is a critical component of quality intervention by physicians in different healthcare settings. Physicians, based on their characteristics vary across different care settings and patient population served. As such, the problem that the study addresses entail the influence of physicians on the overall cost of care. The authors evaluate the role physicians play in ensuring that patients access care at affordable costs. |
| Purpose Statement
(What is the purpose of the study?) |
The purpose of the study was to assess the degree by which hospital costs differ among physicians and founded on the characteristics of healthcare providers. |
| Research Questions
(What questions does the research seek to answer?) |
The researchers in this study seek to answer certain questions;
a). How do physicians impact care delivery’s costs and access by patients? b). What specific physician characteristics influence their practice style and costs as well as the delivery of care outcomes? |
| Define Hypothesis
(Or state the correct hypothesis based upon variables used) |
Hypothesis in research means a statement of expectations or possibilities that researchers want to evaluate. Research hypotheses are essential and researchers work to prove them or not.
In this study, the researchers hypothesize that physicians, based on their characteristics, have significant effects on the cost of care as well as the delivery. The researchers’ hypothesis is that physician influence the overall cost of care delivery in different care settings. |
| Identify Dependent and Independent Variables and Type of Data for the Variables | Dependent Variable
Ø Cost of care Independent Variables Ø Physicians Ø Their characteristics Type of Data for the Variables Ordinal data: characteristics of physicians
|
| Population of Interest for Study | The population of interest for this study include physicians, patients, and health care organizations’ management and administrators. Again, the researchers are keen on enhancing knowledge to the overall public about the effects of physicians and their characteristics on healthcare delivery. |
| Sample | The sample comprised of 15237 physician and 2.5 million hospital visits by patients in two states. |
| Sampling Method | The sampling method is not indicated but based on the inclusion criteria where the researchers selected two states. |
| Identify Data Collection
Identify how data were collected |
The article deployed Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) 2008 State Inpatient Data (SID) from Florida and Arizona. |
| Summarize Data Collection Approach | The data collection model was the State Inpatient Data (SID) from Arizona and Florida. The SID files comprise inpatient hospitalization for diverse conditions, diagnoses and procedures as well as total charges and patient demographics. The researchers also collected data from the respective states on physicians’ information. They collected physician information using the license numbers and names. |
| Discuss Data Analysis
Include what types of statistical tests were used for the variables. |
The authors analyzed gathered data using empirical models founded on a hierarchical approach. The study developed a framework that controls physician characteristics, patient demographics and their socioeconomic features as well as clinical risks. The article evaluated the influence of physician characteristics on cost using multilevel regression analysis through categorizing inpatient visits by doctors. |
| Summarize Results of Study | The results of the study show that female physicians charged lower prices for their services compared to their male counterparts. The study also reveals that no relationship exists between the mean cost of care and physician’s experience. The researchers also found that foreign-trained physicians charged lower prices compared to those trained in the U.S. The findings also show that there is a significant variation in mean cost of inpatient stays across the different medical settings or facilities. The implication is that these variations attributed to physicians’ features do not have a significant overall effect on the cost of care. |
| Summary of Assumptions and Limitations
Identify the assumptions and limitations from the article. Report other potential assumptions and limitations of your review not listed by the author. |
The researchers assumed that the data from the two states was sufficient to make generalizations about the overall cost of care among facilities and physicians. Secondly, the researchers assumed that costs are the only determinants of quality of care and the ones that impact the specialty of physicians in any facility. The study also assumes that all payments are similar yet physicians are reimbursed based on the services provided, from specialty to outpatient settings. The researchers use of inpatient data also limits the findings since they did not consider outpatient data that could offer more insight into costs of care. |
Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations are essential in validating research findings as they show credibility and reliability of the collected data and results. Ethical considerations are a cornerstone of any research and entails adherence to code of ethics and ensuring that research findings benefit certain health populations. The article entailed several ethical considerations in sampling, collecting and analyzing the data as well as publishing results of their activities. In sampling, the study applied an inclusion criterion involving only two states; Florida and Arizona and the 2.5 million hospital visits. The use of collected data in the database means that the researchers did not require participants to offer consent. However, they obtained consent from the different health frameworks and departments mandated to keep and maintain the data. Through these organizations, the researchers got an approval to use the data collected in ways that they expressed.
The analysis of the collected data is vital to making inferences and conclusions. The use of effective data analytical tools is essential and in this case, the researchers used multilevel framework to categorize the information and apply it in the study to attain expected outcomes based on their hypothesis. The authors declared no possible conflict of interest concerning all aspects of the research, from data collection to the findings. This implies that all they were interested in is to evaluate the effects of physicians and their characteristics on care delivery costs in different settings. The researchers also opine that they attained financial support from various organizations and agencies. For instance, they assert that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The implication is that research ethics are essential and the study proves that the authors were ethical in their conduct.
Conclusion
Research analysis is important to ascertain its credibility and relevance in care delivery for different practitioners. The analysis of the article proves that researchers must ensure that they have different aspects to analyze and attain better results. Ethical considerations are important and researchers must adhere to them to get better findings.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
Assessment Description
Search the GCU Library and find one new health care article that uses quantitative research. Do not use an article from a previous assignment, or that appears in the topic Resources or textbook.
Complete an article analysis and ethics evaluation of the research using the “Article Analysis and Evaluation of Research Ethics” template. See Chapter 5 of your textbook as needed, for assistance.
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
Article Analysis and Evaluation of Research Ethics – Rubric
Collapse All
Article (Quantitative, APA Citation and Permalink) 7 points
Criteria Description
Article (Quantitative, APA Citation and Permalink)
5. 5: Excellent 7 points
The article presented is based on quantitative research.
4. 4: Good 5.95 points
N/A
3. 3: Satisfactory 5.25 points
N/A
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.55 points N/A
1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points
The article presented does not use quantitative research.
Article Citation and Permalink 7 points
Criteria Description
Article Citation and Permalink
5. 5: Excellent 7 points
Article citation and permalink are presented. Article citation is accurately presented in APA format. Page numbers are accurate and used in all areas when citing information.
4. 4: Good 5.95 points
Article citation and permalink are presented. Article citation is presented in APA format. Page numbers are used in to cite information. There are minor errors.
3. 3: Satisfactory 5.25 points
Article citation and permalink are presented. Article citation is presented in APA format, but there are errors. Page numbers to cite information are missing, or incorrect, in some areas.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.55 points
Article citation and permalink are presented. There are significant errors. Page numbers are not indicated to cite information, or the page numbers are incorrect.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points
Article citation and permalink are omitted.
Broad Topic Area/Title 7 points
Criteria Description Broad Topic Area/Title
5. 5: Excellent 7 points
Broad topic area and title are fully presented and accurate.
4. 4: Good 5.95 points
Broad topic area and title are presented. Hypothesis is generally defined. There are some minor inaccuracies.
3. 3: Satisfactory 5.25 points
Broad topic area and title are summarized. There are inaccuracies.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.55 points Broad topic area and title are referenced but are incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points
Broad topic area and title are omitted.
Problem Statement 7 points
Criteria Description
Problem Statement
5. 5: Excellent 7 points
Problem statement is accurate and clearly summarized.
4. 4: Good 5.95 points
Problem statement is summarized. There are some minor inaccuracies.
3. 3: Satisfactory 5.25 points
Problem statement is partially presented. There are inaccuracies.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.55 points Problem statement is referenced but is incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points
Problem statement is omitted or incorrect.
Purpose Statement 7 points
Criteria Description Purpose Statement
5. 5: Excellent 7 points
Purpose statement is accurate and clearly summarized.
4. 4: Good 5.95 points
Purpose statement is summarized. There are some minor inaccuracies.
3. 3: Satisfactory 5.25 points
Purpose statement is partially presented. There are inaccuracies.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.55 points Purpose statement is referenced but is incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points
Purpose statement is omitted or incorrect.
Research Questions 7 points
Criteria Description Research Questions
5. 5: Excellent 7 points
Research questions are presented and accurate.
4. 4: Good 5.95 points
N/A
3. 3: Satisfactory 5.25 points
N/A
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.55 points Research questions are partially presented.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points
Research questions are omitted or incorrect.
De ne Hypothesis (Or state the correct hypothesis based upon variables used.)
7 points
Criteria Description
Define Hypothesis (Or state the correct hypothesis based upon variables used.)
5. 5: Excellent 7 points
Hypothesis is accurate and clearly defined
4. 4: Good 5.95 points
Hypothesis is defined. Hypothesis is generally defined. There are some minor inaccuracies.
3. 3: Satisfactory 5.25 points
Hypothesis is generally defined. There are some minor inaccuracies.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.55 points Hypothesis is summarized. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points
Definition of hypothesis is omitted. The definition of the hypothesis is incorrect.
Identify Variables and Type of Data for Variables 7 points
Criteria Description
Identify Variables and Type of Data for Variables
5. 5: Excellent 7 points
Variable type and data for variable are presented and accurate.
4. 4: Good 5.95 points
Variable type and data for variable are presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy.
3. 3: Satisfactory 5.25 points
Variable type and data for variable are presented. There are inaccuracies.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.55 points
Variable type and data for variable are presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points
Variable type and data for variable are omitted.
Population of Interest for Study 7 points
Criteria Description Population of Interest for Study
5. 5: Excellent 7 points
Population of interest for the study is presented and accurate.
4. 4: Good 5.95 points
Population of interest for the study is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy.
3. 3: Satisfactory 5.25 points
Population of interest for the study is presented. There are inaccuracies.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.55 points
Population of interest for the study is presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points
Population of interest for the study is omitted.
Sample 7 points
Criteria Description Sample
5. 5: Excellent 7 points
Sample is presented and accurate. Page citation for sample information is provided.
4. 4: Good 5.95 points
Sample is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy. Page citation for sample information is provided.
3. 3: Satisfactory 5.25 points
Sample is presented. There are inaccuracies.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.55 points Sample is presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points
Sample is omitted.
Sampling Method 7 points
Criteria Description Sampling Method
5. 5: Excellent 7 points
Sampling method is presented and accurate.
4. 4: Good 5.95 points
Sampling method is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy.
3. 3: Satisfactory 5.25 points
Sampling method is presented. There are inaccuracies. Page citation for sample information is omitted.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.55 points Sampling method is presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points
Sampling method is omitted.
Identify Data Collection 7 points
Criteria Description Identify Data Collection
5. 5: Excellent 7 points
How data were collected is fully identified and accurate.
4. 4: Good 5.95 points
How data were collected is identified. There are minor inaccuracies
3. 3: Satisfactory 5.25 points
How data were collected is partially presented. There are inaccuracies or omissions.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.55 points How data were collected is presented but is incorrect.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points
How data were collected is not identified.
Summary of Data Collection Approach 7 points
Criteria Description
Summary of Data Collection Approach
5. 5: Excellent 7 points
The means of data collection are thoroughly summarized and accurate. Page citation for sample information is provided.
4. 4: Good 5.95 points
The means of data collection are summarized. Minor detail is needed for accuracy. Page citation for sample information is provided.
3. 3: Satisfactory 5.25 points
The means of data collection are presented. There are inaccuracies. Page citation for sample information is omitted.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.55 points
The means of data collection are referenced. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points
The means of data collection are omitted.
Data Analysis 7 points
Criteria Description Data Analysis
5. 5: Excellent 7 points
Data analysis is discussed. Types of statistical tests used for the variables are all indicated and accurate.
4. 4: Good 5.95 points
Data analysis is generally discussed. Types of statistical tests used for the variables are indicated. There minor inaccuracies.
3. 3: Satisfactory 5.25 points
Data analysis is summarized. Types of statistical tests used for the variables are indicated. There are inaccuracies or omissions.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.55 points
Data analysis is incomplete. Not all types of statistical tests used for the variables are indicated. The types of statistical tests listed are incorrect or unrelated to the variables indicated.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points
Data analysis is omitted.
Summary Results of Study 7 points
Criteria Description Summary Results of Study
5. 5: Excellent 7 points
The results of study are well summarized. The summary is accurate and clearly represents the results of the study.
4. 4: Good 5.95 points
The results of study are summarized. Minor detail or information is needed for accuracy or clarity.
3. 3: Satisfactory 5.25 points
The results of study are summarized. There are some inaccuracies. Some information or rationale is needed for support.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.55 points
The results of the study are partially presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions. More information is needed.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points
Summary of the results of the study is omitted or incorrect.
Summary Assumptions and Limitations 14 points
Criteria Description
Summary Assumptions and Limitations
5. 5: Excellent 14 points
Assumptions and limitations from the article are identified and accurate. Potential assumptions and limitations not listed by the author are summarized. Strong rationale is provided to support summary.
4. 4: Good 11.9 points
Assumptions and limitations from the article are identified and accurate. Potential assumptions and limitations not listed by the author are summarized. Some information or rationale is needed for support.
3. 3: Satisfactory 10.5 points
Most assumptions and limitations from the article are identified. Other potential assumptions and limitations not listed by the author are summarized. There are some inaccuracies. More information or rationale is needed for support.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 9.1 points
Some assumptions and limitations from the article are identified. Other potential assumptions and limitations not listed by the author are partially presented.
Significant information is needed.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points
Identification of assumptions and limitations by the author is omitted. Summary of potential assumptions and limitations not listed by the author is omitted or not relevant to the study.
Summary of Ethical Considerations 14 points
Criteria Description
Summary of Ethical Considerations
5. 5: Excellent 14 points
Ethical considerations related to sampling, collecting data, analyzing data, and publishing results are clearly summarized. The ethical considerations summarized are reasonable. Strong rationale and support are provided.
4. 4: Good 11.9 points
Ethical considerations related to sampling, collecting data, analyzing data, and publishing results are summarized. The ethical considerations summarized are reasonable. Some rationale or evidence are needed to support summary.
3. 3: Satisfactory 10.5 points
Ethical considerations related to sampling, collecting data, analyzing data, and publishing results are presented. There are some inaccuracies. Some information and rationale are needed to support summary.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 9.1 points
Ethical considerations related to sampling, collecting data, analyzing data, and publishing results are incomplete. There are major inaccuracies or omissions. Significant information and rationale are needed to support summary.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points
Summary of ethical considerations is omitted.
Mechanics of Writing 7 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)
5. 5: Excellent 7 points
The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. 4: Good 5.95 points
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.
3. 3: Satisfactory 5.25 points
