Educational intervention effects on nursing students' organ donation knowledge

¶ … credentials and affiliation?

The one person named was Jane McCausland Kurz. She is an Registered Nurse and a PhD at Temple University in Philadelphia.

Did the researcher/s received funding that supported this research?

That was not disclosed. There is a header at the very end that says "Financial Disclosures" but there is nothing listed there.

Who were the study participants?

Nursing students…not quite 120 in total.

Was the eligibility criteria stated?

Didn't seem to be any…convenience sample.

Was a pilot study undertaken?

What is the underlying paradigm of the study?

That the network of organ donations existing right now is not sufficient for the people that need them, when they need them. At least part of the problem, as explained in the abstract of the study, is the misinformation that exists.

Does the study involve the collection of empirical evidence?

Yes.

What is empirical evidence?

Completed Likert-scale surveys from two groups that are differentiated based on how they were treated as part of the study.

Is the purpose of the study clearly stated?

Yes…stated on the first page that "was to evaluate the impact of an educational intervention on nursing students' knowledge, attitudes, registering as an organ donor and family discussions."

Was the research problem stated? If so, what is it?

Yes…they state that there is an issue with organ donations not meeting the nationwide need for organs and the study is using a study of public education as a means to address that.

What were the key concepts in this study?

More organs are needed for donations, a lot of misinformation exists out there, there needs to be a study as to why both of those items exist.

How many different databases did the researcher/s use?

It would seem that there were just two datasets…the two different groups of volunteers.

What is the independent variable (intervention)?

The lecture about organ donation

What is the dependent variable (outcome that is measured)?

Educational levels and organ donation enrollment rates.

What is the population?

The wider organ donating/needing population

How were the study participants recruited?

Volunteers at a nursing school (Temple)

What was the sample size?

Initially, it was not quite 120. About two thirds of those stayed on the whole time.

Was power analysis used to determine sample size needs?

No…they got the people they could…that's it.

Does the report specify a research question? If so, what is it?

No.

Does the report specify a hypothesis? If so, what is it?

Yes. As noted on page 213, "one hypothesis was that students who attend the organ donation/transplant class lecture and laboratory will have higher knowledge levels, higher rates of registration as organ donors, and higher rates of sharing decisions. The second hypothesis was that four months after the class was completed, those students who attended the class and lab would have higher knowledge levels.

Were the data in the study quantitative or qualitative?

Quantitative…Likert scale would be all about the numbers.

What was the study design? Is this a strong or weak design?

Just a simple compare and contrast between those that got the education and those that did not. Not complex…pretty basic. Not strong, but not weak either.

What was the location of the study?

Presumably on the Temple campus or nearby.

What were the primary methods of data collection?

Surveys and responses from the participants.

Who gathered the data in this study? How were data collectors trained?

It would seem the author of the study did…she says "investigator-created survey"…singular.

What were the procedures involved in the data collection?

The surveys were given out, filled out and collected. This happened again 3-4 months later.

Did the study involve statistical analysis of data?

Yes…and the research used the Social Science 13.0…the statistical package.

What statistical tests were used?

Measures of central tendency and frequencies. There were also 2-tailed t tests and x2 tests…per the "Analysis" section on page 215.

Were tables used to present the data analysis?

Yes…one such table on page 215.

Does the report indicate that the study procedures were reviewed by an IRB or other similar institutional ethical review committee?

Yes…this is specifically noted on page 213.

Would the study participants in this study be considered "vulnerable"?

No…just students at a college…they knew what they were in for and they were not lied to.

Were participants subjected to any physical harm or discomfort or psychological distress as part of this study?

No.

Were participants deceived in any way?

Would not seem so…just presented facts and asked for opinions….unless one counts the fact that they probably weren't told what precisely was being measured…but that's a lie by omission and avoids the Hawthorne effect.

Were participants coerced into participating in the study?

No…clearly says the participants were volunteers

Were appropriate informed consent procedures used?

Yes…this is explicitly stated in the study.

Does the report discuss steps that were taken to protect the privacy and confidentiality of study participants?

It is noted that no demographic information was collected. They only note the race and gender of the people involved and that could be determined by sight in most cases. No privacy implications noticed.

Was there any attrition in this study?

Yes…this is noted in the study on page 215.

Was this study strong in internal validity?

Other than the sampling, the internal validity was strong.

Was this study strong in external validity?

No. A group of nursing students at one college in the United States…no way that would be externally valid (not on its own, anyway)

Is the description about the analytic and data management a thorough description?

For as complex as the study really was, the author did a good job.

Did the researcher/s describe the study's limitations and strengths?

There is a little bit of it in the conclusion…but not a specific section.

Were the findings and conclusions clearly stated?

Yes.

How relevant is this study to the actual practice of nursing?

Fairly relevant…although the target population that has to be won over is the broader public…not just nursing students.

Could this be used for evidence-based nursing practice?

This study? No. If this study were done in a better way, perhaps…but not this study.

How good a job did the researcher/s do in summarizing the study in the abstract?

Quite a good job, actually. The study itself was well-intentioned and had a good reason behind it…just not earth-shattering in terms of the execution.

How long do you estimate it took for this study to be completed?

Given that a three to four-month window between the responses was used, I would say 4-6 months depending on prep time and analysis requirements.

Do you see how you are capable of critiquing certain aspects of a research study?

Indeed I do, per the above.