Critical Analysis of a Quantitative Study

Prepare a critical analysis of a quantitative study focusing on protection of human
participants, data collection, data analysis, problem statement, and interpretation of
Each study analysis will be 750-1,000 words and submitted in one document.
Refer to the resource Research Critique, Part 2. Questions under each heading should be
addressed as a narrative, in the structure of a formal paper.
Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide,
located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a grading rubric. Instructors will be using the rubric to grade the
assignment; therefore, students should review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment
to become familiar with the assignment criteria and expectations for successful completion
of the assignment.
Submit the assignment along with an electronic version of the article used for the analysis.
If an electronic version is not available, submit a clean unmarked copy of the article.

Critical Analysis of a Quantitative Study

Protection of Human Participants
The authors have only addressed the benefits of the participation. Participation would allow
the authors to examine the extent to which videoconferencing is used for consultation and
information exchange in the entire patient trajectory. Moreover, it would make it possible to
assess how collaboration between specialists and general practitioners influences patient
treatment and learning. All the subjects gave their informed consent before being interviewed
and observed and, therefore, they participated voluntarily (Nilsen, 2011). There was no approval
from the institutional review board in the agency where the study took place.
Data Collection
The researcher does not identify the independent and dependent variables. In 2007 during a
5-month period, forty two videoconferences between the medical center and medical ward in the
hospital were videotaped and observed. Out of the 42 conferences, 13 were for information
exchange, 12- consultation, and 17- practical organizing (Nilsen, 2011). These categories
enabled a comprehension of the videoconference meetings’ content. Depending on the meeting’s

content, the videoconferences were conducted for fifteen minutes. Observations aimed at
illuminating the learning opportunities between care levels as the conditions of patients changed
overtime. Video recordings enabled the collaborative work’s microanalysis with time
progression in the treatment trajectory (Nilsen, 2011).
The leading specialists and general practitioners who participated in the videoconferences
were also interviewed. Semi-structured interviews were used and they were transcribed and
recorded. Eight face-to-face interviews were conducted for 20-70 minutes starting from 2007
December (Nilsen, 2011). The interviews were aimed at allowing the specialists and general
practitioners to express themselves in regard to videoconferencing use as well as discuss
different themes based on observations. After participants gave their informed consent, there
were videoconferences followed by interviews.
Data Management and Analysis
Interaction analysis was used for analyzing the observations. This is a strategy used for
investigating nonverbal interaction and talk, as well as artifacts use in the interaction between
objects and people during daily work practice. The interaction analysis made it possible to
analyze the medical talk. The observations were transcribed, and the transcriptions and video
recordings analyzed and discussed with medical professionals and supervisors. The categories of
the interactions were based argumentation turns and tools use during the dialogue. Analyzing the
daily practice interactions is imperative in comprehending the activities as a constituent of
institutional practices and locally situated contexts (Kjeldmand & Holmström, 2008). The
categories of the talk were based on traditional medical reasoning concepts; confirmation,
treatment, information, and descriptions.

Video ethnography is vital for deliberating cultural and organizational change and it
offered health professionals the chance to agree with and engage with the results. Interview
analysis was vital for enriching the observations as the participants were able to express
themselves depending on the themes and situations (Nilsen, 2011). The utterances used by the
specialists and general practitioners when discussing information exchange and knowledge gaps
were analyzed. During the analysis, no statistical software was used to enhance the accuracy.
A theoretical selection was used to analyze the data. The analysis is generalized to adhere
to a theoretical debate as opposed to a larger group. This was done intentionally so as to be able
to focus on collaborative work’s theme through the use of videoconferencing. This involved
subjective medical talk experiences as a tool for knowledge and information sharing between
care levels and the existing knowledge gaps. The ethical committee approved the study (Carroll
et al., 2009).
Findings / Interpretation of Findings
Collaborative work plays a crucial role in improving continuity and coordination in
treatment. There is a dire need for collaboration between specialists and general practitioner.
Knowledge and information exchange through collaboration reveals contradictions between what
is managed collectively and individually by physicians and develops chances for specialists’ and
general practitioners’ learning (Nilsen, 2011). The study reveals what the interaction should
entail and the benefits of collaborative activities. The study’s findings are accurate and valid.
Moreover, they are a real reflection of reality and I have confidence in them. The findings have
been presented following coherent logic. The researchers did not identify any limitations during
the study.

The study makes it possible to understand how individual knowledge development results
from everyday work activities. An analysis of the knowledge gaps and the strategies used by
practitioners in bridging the gaps makes it easy to comprehend how learning opportunities can be
maximized in daily medical practice (Burns & Grove, 2011). Workplace learning has been
emphasized on as well as how collaborative work improves quality and develops novel work
practices. The article highlights the importance for collaboration between specialists and general
practitioners in patient treatment. The study places keen stress on boundary crossing activities
and indicates that learning can occur at any level. Continuous information and knowledge
exchange is vital and videoconference should be a regularly used tool. The author offers no
suggestions for future studies.


Burns, N., & Grove, S. (2011). Understanding Nursing Research (5 th ed.). New York: Elsevier.
Carroll, C., Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., Sutton, A., & Wong, R. (2009). UK health‐care
professionals’ experience of on‐line learning techniques: A systematic review of
qualitative data. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 29(4), 235-
Kjeldmand, D., & Holmström, I. (2008). Balint groups as a means to increase job satisfaction
and prevent burnout among general practitioners. The Annals of Family Medicine, 6(2),
Nilsen, L. L. (2011). Workplace learning among general practitioners and specialists. Journal of
Workplace Learning, 23(8): 501-517.