RESEARCH SKILLS EBP

by subject heading. Subject headings are sets of controlled vocabulary that give a standardised term to a concept. When a search retrieves nothing worthwhile, is it because no literature exists, or is it because the person looking has not found it (9)? In summary, knowing how to

formulate a good search strategy makes searching more methodical, relevant, thorough, complete and time- efficient.

Secondary

RESEARCH TYPES AND DATA For many years scientists have recognised two different types of research: primary and secondary (Table 1). Both types of research can involve either qualitative or quantitative research data. Qualitative data are depicted as rich and deep; the research methods generally include field observations, case studies, ethnography and narrative reports. Qualitative research seeks to understand the meaning of an experience to the subjects in a specific setting and how the components mesh to form a whole (2). The most fundamental characteristic of qualitative research is its express commitment to viewing, for example, events, action, norms and values from the perspective of the participants. In contrast, quantitative data are

depicted as hard, rigorous and reliable (10). Quantitative research tends to focus on analysis; its strength lies in its reliability (repeatability), which is the extent to which a test or procedure produces similar results under constant conditions on all occasions (11). In summary, generally quantitative

research is objective, whereas qualitative tends to be more subjective.

THE QUALITY ISSUE Evidence-based practice is a process of turning clinical problems into questions, and then systematically locating, critically appraising and using robust contemporary research evidence as the basis for clinical decisions (12). It is widely accepted that the reading of peer-reviewed research articles is essential for EBP and vital to continuing professional development (CPD) (4,13,14). Journal-reading enables the therapist to keep up to date with current thinking (15). However, research evidence should never be accepted

www.sportEX.net

TABLE 1. DEFINITIONS AND COMPARISON BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY RESEARCH Primary

Primary research (also called field research) involves the collection of data that do not already exist. Primary research comprises original studies based on observation or experimentation on subjects designed to unearth original data. In order to do this, an original research plan must be devised, which encompasses methodology, data collection, data input, and the production and analysis of the subsequent results. Due to the sometimes lengthy duration of this research, it may be expensive to conduct. Because the research is original, however, the results gathered will be more relevant to the needs of the researcher and eventually the clinician.

Secondary research is the use of information that other people have gathered through primary research. Secondary research involves reviews of published research, drawing together the findings of two or more primary studies. These secondary sources normally involve journal articles but may also include previous research reports, newspapers and magazines. A key advantage of secondary research is the full citation of original sources, usually in the form of a complete reference listing. Secondary research is generally easier to perform than primary research. Systematic reviews are classified as secondary research.

blindly and certainly should not be taken at face value (16). Therefore, research needs to be critically evaluated for both quality (validity) and relevance (17) in order to help the clinician make better use of the evidence (18) to inform clinical decisions and practice. In 1996, Rothstein realised that

the survival of his profession (physical therapy) depended not on the quantity of dubious research but on the quality of focused and meaningful research (19). Rosenberg and Donald said: “we are confronted by a growing body of information, much of it invalid or irrelevant to clinical practice” (12). Many authors share this view; for

example, Marshall reminds us of the need to read literature with a critical mind – even literature published in peer-reviewed journals (16). More drastically, Greenhalgh suggests that most published articles belong in the bin and should certainly not be used to inform practice (20). According to Del Mar, most research papers are written as communications from scientists to scientists and relatively few have immediate clinical relevance – most of the remainder are not rigorous enough to warrant applying clinically (9). Consequently, the proportion of useful

IS ESSENTIAL FOR EBP AND VITAL TO CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

IT IS WIDELY ACCEPTED THE READING OF PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH ARTICLES

11

information is very small. Greenhalgh reported that many papers published in medical journals have potentially serious methodological flaws (20); therefore, if you are deciding whether a paper is worth reading, you should do so on the design of the methods section. In support of Greenhalgh,