Introduction
The qualitative research ‘Australian Radiographers’ and Radiation Therapists’ Experiences during the COVID-19 Pandemic’ by Shanahan et al. (2021) investigated the impact of the recent COVID-19 outbreak on service delivery and general wellbeing. The research was carried out in Australia and targeted radiographers and radiation therapists who were directly involved in patient care during the pandemic. The researchers used an online survey method to collect data from a sample of 218 online radiographers in Australia. Collected data included measurements such as demographic data, the impact of COVID-19 on radiographers’ professional practice, and stress related to work when dealing with the pandemic.
The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze the article and evaluate the level of evidence and findings presented by the study’s authors. The critical approach uses peer-reviewed articles to examine how the researchers of this qualitative research article have answered the research question.
Research Design
All studies, whether qualitative or quantitative, must employ a particular strategy to answer the research question. Busetto, Wick, and Gumbinger (2020, p. 5) defined the research design as a strategy for answering the research question using empirical data. In the article by Shanahan et al. (2021), the authors opted for a cross-sectional research design to investigate the research topic.
Qualitative research studies have gained significant attention from scholars interested in studying phenomena in their natural environments (Maxwell, 2018, p. 179). The choice of this method by Shanahan et al. (2021) helped the researchers obtain data from the radiographers’ point of view rather than assuming what the participants could have said. For instance, the qualitative approach allowed the researchers to send online questionnaires to participants, who could then provide self-report data that the researchers could use to understand the research phenomena. In this case, the phenomenon was the impact of Covid-19 on radiographers. By collecting self-reported data, the researchers could interpret the data from the respondent’s point of view.
Even though the survey method allows researchers to collect first-hand primary data, there have been concerns about the responses’ reliability. Korstjens and Moser (2018, p. 122) explained that the lack of face-to-face interviews and the absence of the researcher in the field gives the respondents the freedom to give false responses, or some can give general responses without proper reasoning. This could lead to bias in the study, as Ball elaborated (2019, p. 412).
In the article, Shanahan et al. (2021) only indicated that they employed the survey method in data collection. Still, they did not spare some sentences to acknowledge the strengths of this method to the study or its impact on the research question. This does not render the study weak, but it could have helped the reader to develop new perspectives about the findings and conclusions drawn by the authors of this research article.
Method and Findings
Every researcher is often guided by “How” when answering the research question. “Method” is, therefore, a path or guide the researcher follows in answering the research question. As noted in the introduction, Shanahan et al. (2021) used a cross-sectional online survey method to collect data for this research. Cross-sectional research studies allow researchers to collect data from participants without influencing them. The researcher can collect a data pool quickly, especially when online survey methods are applied, as seen in this case.
For instance, Shanahan et al. (2021, p. 111) explained that they collected data from 218 participants between June and July. It is not possible to interview such a significant number of participants face-to-face. The choice of an online questionnaire was, therefore, important. Additionally, this study was conducted when Covid-19 was already causing damage and forcing countries to enforce lockdown measures. Face-to-face interviews were not possible then, so the decision was made to use online questionnaires as the best intervention to avoid violating virus containment measures.
Validity and Reliability
There is currently an ongoing debate about the reliability of scientific evidence. In one of the studies carried out by Boutron and Ravaud (2018, p. 2613), the researchers found that more than 50% of authors of published peer-reviewed journal articles had admitted to “spinning” the data to meet their intended needs. “Spinning,” in this case, has been defined by Boutron and Ravaud (2018, p. 2613) as intentional or unintentional reporting that fails to account for the range of findings of the study. Noble and Smith (2015, p. 34) explained the need to evaluate scientific research papers to determine whether to include the findings in future research or for clinical decision-making.
In the selected article for analysis by Shanahan et al. (2021), the authors have made some efforts to make the reader of the article accept that the presented evidence is reliable. For instance, the authors have declared a lack of self-interest in the study. The authors have also declared the sample size and the method of data collection in the abstract and have gone ahead to present the same information in the paper. Although the research question has not been stated openly, the reader of the research paper can tell from a glance what the authors were investigating and how they answered the question.
Qualitative research studies have often been written using a specific theory or framework. Grounded theory is one of the popular approaches used in qualitative studies. Collins and Stockton (2018, p. 2) define theory as a strategy of organizing ideas in a big picture with the purpose of giving these ideas an explaining power. Grounded theory is drawn from the study of data collected (Haven et al., 2020, p. 235).
In this case, the researcher sets the research question, collects data about a phenomenon, and comes up with a new theory to explain the emerging themes from the data collected. Shanahan et al. (2021) did not explain or declare the theory used in the study, but one can tell that this study used grounded theory. The authors explained all the steps used in data collection and analysis, concluded with what they observed from the study, and made recommendations for the future.
Data Collection
A convenient sampling technique was used by Shanahan et al. (2021). The authors indicate in the article that they used the Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (ASMIRT) as the medium of distributing the questionnaire to respondents. ASMIRT has more than 7054 registered members, and the authors of the research paper believed that they could easily access data from the convenient sample of participants who are radiographers and radiology therapists. The choice of a convenient sampling technique in this case is the right one because it protects the researchers from handling “dirty” data that does not reflect the lived experiences of radiographers.
However, Vasileiou et al. (2018, p. 17) explained that the research team ought to declare the sampling method and justify why they opted for that technique. In the article, Shanahan et al. stated that they used convenient sampling because it was the primary mode of distributing the questionnaire. The use of an electronic questionnaire was also necessary as it protected the research team from handling physical forms that could endanger the safety of participants or the research team at the time when the virus was at its peak.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is a process that goes through different steps. In qualitative research, the researcher ought to declare the statistical method used to condense the data with the goal of bringing out meaningful information. Shanahan et al. (2021) described the method of data analysis, stating that they used IBM SPSS software. This software has prominence in the analysis of qualitative data, as explained by Morgan et al. (2019, p. 5). However, the mere declaration of the software is not enough and should not be used as a scapegoat to have the research paper published (Urquhart, 2022, p. 9).
Additionally, the use of the software does not mean that the software does the analysis. It is the researcher who analyzes and interprets data. The researcher ought to provide credible evidence of having carried out statistical analysis (Chapman, 2018, p. 2). Shanahan et al. (2021) have not indicated a screenshot of data in the IBM SPSS window, which could have added to the reliability of the research findings. This does not weaken the research paper, but it could have increased the reliability of the reported findings.
Findings
Researchers ought to accept the research findings and report them, even when the findings challenge the hypothesis. Research findings are derived from the data analysis, and they have to be unbiased because they are to be used by other scholars or clinicians in the future (Stenfors, Kajamaa, and Bennett, 2020, p. 9). According to Boutron and Ravaud (2018), some researchers seek clarification from participants through a process called member checking. Member checking increases the confidence of researchers in the results, and it is necessary for the research team to declare it in the paper (Candela, 2019, p. 626).
Shanahan et al. (2021) did not declare member checking in their research paper, even when this simple declaration could have enhanced the reliability of the findings reported. There is also a need for the authors of the research to avoid overstepping the analysis section of the paper and make the research appear as if all the questions were answered. In evaluating the article by Shanahan et al. (2021) by comparing the conclusion and the discussion sections, one notes that the study did not generate any new questions. Instead, the authors made the study appear to have answered all the research questions.
Ethical Issues in the Research
Ethics in research is a requirement, for the same of the relationship between scientific research and society. Scientific research shapes public policy such as the recruitment of more staff to address shortages and employee burnout. There is also a need for researchers to declare to have registered the study with an Institutional Review Board. The research study by Shanahan et al. (2021, p. 112) was approved by the Human Ethics Research Committee at Bournemouth University.
Relevance of the Research Findings to Professional Practice in the UK
Health sciences exist with a social mandate. In this case, research in health sciences ought to be driven by the need to generate information that benefits society. The knowledge generated from the study can be used to further the discipline, as well as the welfare of society. Furthermore, situating the research findings within a historical context, such as the COVID-19 period, helps the researchers to reveal new themes and challenging issues that demand the attention of policymakers. Evaluating the article by Shanahan et al. (2021) based on this criterion reveals that the study addressed the urgent need to safeguard the health of radiographers and radiologists who were victims of COVID-19. The shortage of PPEs during service delivery was an immediate challenge that required the attention of donors and the government’s response.
The findings from the research conducted by Shanahan et al. (2021) are applicable to the case scenario in the UK. The challenges that Australian radiographers and radiologists encounter are not unique to the ones faced by radiographers and radiologists in the UK. Pandemics can strain resources, forcing frontline workers to suffer stress and burnout, as explained by Armstrong et al. (2022, p.7). To avoid such challenges, the government and stakeholders involved should have mechanisms in place to support frontline workers and prioritize the safety of healthcare professionals, as seen in the Shanahan et al. (2021) article. Job burnout and stress can reduce the productivity of radiographers and radiologists, leading to negative health outcomes both for the professional and patients who are in dire need of medical attention.
Conclusion
This paper has critically evaluated and analyzed the article by Shanahan et al. (2021), where the researchers sought to determine the impact of the pandemic on radiographers. The evaluation revealed that the authors adhered to ethical standards and applied statistical processes to answer the research question. The evidence generated from the study conducted in Australia is applicable to the situation in the UK, where radiographers face similar challenges that could undermine their practice and service delivery. Policymakers should use the evidence generated to inform public policy and implement changes that will transform the industry and society at large.
Reference List
Armstrong et al. (2022). ‘Burnout, stress and resilience of an Australian regional hospital during COVID-19: a longitudinal study.’ BMC Health Services Research, 22(1), pp.1-13. Web.
Ball, H.L. (2019). ‘Conducting online surveys.’ Journal of Human Lactation, 35(3), pp.413-417. Web.
Boutron, I. and Ravaud, P. (2018). ‘Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), pp.2613-2619. Web.
Busetto, L., Wick, W. and Gumbinger, C. (2020). ‘How to use and assess qualitative research methods.’ Neurological Research and Practice, 2(1), pp.1-10. Web.
Candela, A., G. (2019). Exploring the function of member checking. The Qualitative Report, 24(3), pp.619-628. Web.
Chapman, S., J. (2018). ‘Review of discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics.’Journal of Political Science Education. Web.
Collins, C.S. and Stockton, C.M., (2018). ‘The central role of theory in qualitative research.’ International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), p.1-10. Web.
Haven et al. 2020). ‘Preregistering qualitative research: A Delphi study.’ International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, p. 229-244. Web.
Korstjens, I. and Moser, A. (2018). ‘Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing.’ European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), pp.120-124. Web.
Maxwell, J., A. (2020). ‘The value of qualitative inquiry for public policy.’ Qualitative Inquiry, 26(2), pp.177-186. Web.
Morgan G. et al. (2019). IBM SPSS for Introductory statistics: use and interpretation: Use and Interpretation. Routledge.
Noble, H. and Smith, J. (2015). ‘Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research.’ Evidence-based Nursing, 18(2), pp.34-35. Web.
Shanahan, M., C. and Akudjedu, T., N. (2021). ‘Australian radiographers’ and radiation therapists’ experiences during the COVID‐19 pandemic.’ Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences, 68(2), pp.111-120. Web.
Stenfors, T., Kajamaa, A. and Bennett, D. (2020). ‘How to… assess the quality of qualitative research.’ The Clinical Teacher, 17(6), pp.596-599. Web.
Urquhart, C. (2022). Grounded theory for qualitative research: A practical guide. Sage.
Vasileiou K. et al. (2018). ‘Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period.’ BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), pp.1-18. Web.