Critical Appraisal of a Clinical Guideline Essay

Critical Appraisal of a Clinical Guideline - Essay Example It is against this backdrop that this essay is seeking to critically review and appraise the research undertaken by Chan, Lopel And Chung. Research Design The aim of the research was stated as â€Å"to investigate the perceptions of coronary heart disease among a sample of Hong Kong Chinese people.† Qualitative study was conducted using focus group interviews. To a very large extent, qualitative research has been endorsed as a very appropriate research methodology for social rather than scientific researches. Since this research was set out to find the perceptions of people about a health related issue, it could be concluded that this is a social research. To this effect, it is right the qualitative research was used. Ereaut (2011) notes that â€Å"Qualitative research seeks out the ‘why’, not the ‘how’ of its topic through the analysis of unstructured information – things like interview transcripts.† This also means that the choice of i nterview as a research design was appropriate since the research method was a qualitative research method. These two points not withstanding, in relating the research design, which was group interview to the aim of the research, it could be said that the researchers could have resorted to one-on-one interview instead of group interview. This is because the research aim focused on finding the perception of people on the coronary heart disease. In a situation like this where people’s perception are sort in a group interview, it is likely that the view, ideas and perceptions of some people would be influenced by others in the same interview group and would therefore undermine the core aim of the research, which is to find the individual perception of people. Sampling The researchers clearly stated the recruitment method or strategy used saying that â€Å"Convenience and snowball sampling methods were used† (Choi et al, 2010). They also explained how the participants were selected stating that â€Å"The LRP participants were recruited from the public domains; Participants in the MRF and MI groups were recruited from one cardiac rehabilitation and prevention centre in the community-based hospital† (Choi et al, 2010). Again, the researchers were clear on why the participants recruited were the most appropriate for the study. To this effect, they wrote that â€Å"The LRP participants had three or less CHD risk factors; The MRF participants had four or more CHD risk factors with or without a history of CHD, and the MI participants had a medical diagnosis of MI† (Choi et al, 2010). Relating the recruitment strategy to literature, Treweek et al (2010) explain that there should be sufficient participants for the research. In this direction, it can be said that the researchers were right in choosing to pick participants from as many as three different quarters. Again, Treweek et al (2010) posit that it is appropriate that â€Å"participants kn ow which treatment they are receiving in the trial, rather than having some of them receive a placebo or dummy intervention to mask this.† In this area also, it could be said that the researchers took the right step because it was clearly stated that â€Å"Each eligible participant recruited was given detailed explanation of the nature and purpose of the study. They were also informed that participation was on a voluntary basis and that they could withdraw from the study at any time.†