Critical Evaluation of Qualitative or Quantitative Research Study

Critical Evaluation of Qualitative or Quantitative Research Study

Examine the relationships among theory, practice, and research. 2)
Interpret research findings using the elements of the research process. 3) Differentiate between
ethical and legal precepts that guide research conduct and protect human subjects. 4) Integrate
reliable evidence from multiple ways of knowing, to inform practice and make clinical
judgments. 5) Evaluate data from relevant sources, including technology, to inform the delivery
of care to culturally and ethnically diverse populations. 6) Collaborate with health team members
to collect, interpret, synthesize and disseminate evidence to improve patient outcomes in complex health care environments.

Critical Evaluation of Qualitative or Quantitative Research Study

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity both in developed and developing
countries [1-5]. A treatment option for patients with
advanced atherosclerotic CHD is coronary artery bypass
grafting (CABG). In 2009 in the US, more than 416,000
patients underwent bypass surgery [4]; the benefits include
relief of angina, improvement in quality of life and increase
in life expectancy in high-risk patients [6-11]. Several
factors can influence the health-quality of life (HRQoL)
of patients after CABG. The main factors identified in large
randomised controlled trials are poor pre-operative physical
health [7,9,10,12,13], greater severity of angina [7,9,12], and
employment status [7,12]. Non-randomised studies suggest
increasing age [14-16], male gender [17-20], greater social
deprivation [21,22], less education [23], increasing dyspnoea
[17,24-26], greater symptom severity/medication use
[21,23,24], and previous myocardial infarction [27] contribute significantly to patient’s poorer HRQoL after CABG.