Research Analysis Procedures.....edited
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Kenyatta University School of Economics *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
200
Subject
Medicine
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by PresidentTarsierPerson843
1
Research Analysis Procedures
Name
Tutor
Institution
Course
Date
2
Research Data Analysis Procedures
a)
Data analysis section
In addressing systematic reviews’ study findings’ researcher bias, reliability, and validity,
I will justify analytical and methodological choices within the findings, rather than in the
discussion or not at all, and plan sensitivity analysis on aspects that are contested in the used
sources and keep the resulting data detailed and open. Again, the used studies on the topic will be
scholarly hence peer-reviewed to ensure validity and reliability of their findings, hence avoiding
researcher bias. I will conduct a keen and deep analysis of the information sources, such as the
Cochrane systematic reviews which boast being the benchmark for high-quality information
about healthcare effectiveness to ascertain that the studies in the reviews do not contain any bias
(Furlan et al., 2009). The reason is that the information source among many others has been
criticized for lack of transparency despite there being room for improvement in addressing bias
concerns.
In the exercise, I will adhere to arguments by Bastian (2020) that there is always a huge
likelihood for bias in the protocols that detect bias themselves. An excellent example would be in
Cochrane Systematic Reviews, which has a section named "how the intervention might work" in
the protocols' background, which is intrinsically biased by assuming that the intervention could
work without any consideration of the possible harm. I will therefore have it in my mind that
even if perfectly unbiased systematic reviews and protocols existed, the integrity of such sources
and their respective findings on the study topic would likely be criticized anyway particularly if
the results contradict the readers' preconceived beliefs and notion especially around a
controversial subject matter. I will hence have to engage with such potential controversies by
being open about the entire process, in addition to taking inspiration from vast systematic review
3
bodies including the Cochrane Handbook and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
(AHRQ) as contended by Bastian (2020).
Furthermore, I will ensure that every stage of the systematic review process adheres to
concepts of oversight and involvement from impartial professionals with methodological
expertise on deprivation effects on African Americans who had contact with the Criminal Justice
System in the United States. The study data on the population’s deprivation effects on upon
being at loggerheads with the Criminal Justice System of the United States will be analyzed
using the PRISMA checklist for evidence synthesis studies PRISMA-2020 due to its currency
and applicability. In so doing, the steps to be utilized include the identification of the report as a
systematic review. I will understand that systematic reviews entail research projects aimed
towards providing new insights on a topic, and thus designed for bias minimization in research
study findings (Beller et al., 2013). These resources would be of much essence in data analysis as
they will ensure the creation of accessible research examining and investigating literature on
deprivation effects on African Americans who had contact with the Criminal Justice System in
the United States, thereby aiding me through information aggregation in a systematic way. The
abstract, statement of the main question (s) or objective (s) addressed by the review as well as
specification of both exclusion and inclusion criteria for the resources.
Additionally, I will specify the information sources such as registers and databases in
identifying the studies and the date they were accessed. There will also be a specification of the
methods used in bias assessment, the techniques employed in presenting and synthesizing results
as well as provision of the total number of studies included, not forgetting the total number of
participants and study characteristics. There will be a presentation of results and inferences for
the main outcomes with the number of participants and included studies in each resource. Any
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
limitations of evidence in the studies will be included in the review such as inconsistency, bias
and imprecision biases. Important implications and a general interpretation of the results will be
provided. Therefore, I will use the PRISMA checklist for evidence synthesis studies PRISMA-
2020 to analyze the data on the systematic reviews about deprivation Effects on African
Americans who had contact with the Criminal Justice System (Beller et al., 2013).
b)
Ethical assurance section
I can confidently confirm that this study will receive approval from the Institutional
Review Board at the University before the review of the used materials for data collection. The
reason is IRB staff is tasked with screening submissions with the objective and sole purpose of
determining the completeness and the appropriate review types, and thus it is possible to have
such submissions returned to me for changes before I am assigned the review type while
understanding that the same can as well be reassessed at any moment during the review process.
Such will be achieved by ensuring I experience minimal risks as a participant, which would in
this case be reasonable about the anticipated study benefits as argued by Jacques and Wright
(2010). Also, I will make sure that subject selection is equitable, while at the same time
protecting the confidentiality and privacy of the used samples in the systematic reviews.
Furthermore, for the institution's IRB to approve my study, it will be essential to ensure
the process of informed consent meets the agreed-upon federal regulations and the schools'
requirements. Furthermore, I will perform my role of ensuring that the study is well classified
and the type of research carried out is described categorically, whether a survey, an educational
intervention or an ethnographic observation. Other methods to ensure approval by the
institution’s IRB would include guaranteeing that the research question’s sensitivity and research
design complexity never negatively affect the public (Jacques and Wright, 2010). It is hence
5
worth noting that the systematic reviews for data gathering should not entail the involvement of
vulnerable populations as participants or the use of identifiable information and bio-specimens,
thereby emphasizing the need for privacy and confidentiality by not revealing the identities of
the study respondents (Maher et al., 2019). My systematic review resources in the study will thus
entail the application of one or more of the criteria for expedited or exempt review thereby
fulfilling requirements like full protection of regulations.
The relevant ethical issues in the event risks to me as a participant will be greater than
minimal in the study will include disclosure of identifiable sensitive information about myself as
a participant when analyzing data from the systematic reviews, psychological or emotional
trauma due because of stigmatization and jeopardizing my physical activity, health, academic
standing and my general reputation in any context as contended by Kopelman (2004). Other
ethical issues are failure to protect vulnerable members, and failure to ensure my voluntary and
informed participation in the exercise. To avoid all that, I will first go into the depth of the matter
and consult with my faculty advisor along with my research design guidance and other resources
relevant to ensuring IRB approval to develop research projects that are ethical and meaningful.
Others will entail ensuring the research is ethical by protecting my confidentiality and
privacy as well as that of the participants taking part in the systematic reviews on the used
scholarly resources. The approaches I would use to ensure confidentiality in the study will entail
controlling access to the collected data and information, both physical and digital. Again, I will
protect paper documents and devices from theft or misuse by always storing them in locked
areas. It is inappropriate and unethical to leave sensitive documents and devices containing
information on the research unattended in public locations, which is the reason any data, paper
records and devices containing collected information should be securely disposed of.
6
The role of the researcher in the study will be to identify and critically appraise relevant
research on deprivation effects on African Americans who had contact with the Criminal Justice
System in the United States while collecting and analyzing collected data in the studies from the
selected reviews. Again, the researcher will be tasked with identifying all empirical evidence that
perfectly fits the pre-specified inclusion criteria to answer the research questions and hypotheses
(Almeida and Goulart, 2017). Therefore, using systematic and explicit methods when reviewing
the resources and other available evidence will help minimize bias, thereby providing reliable
findings from which I will be able to draw conclusions and make decisions.
The relevant issues including biases, and professional and personal experiences with the
topic that may influence the study comprise using poor research design together with a synergy
between diverse contributing variables in my systematic review and investigation thereby
infusing bias into my research process. Such situations could also occur in the event my personal
experiences influence the choice of the research question and methodology, eventually
conducting the research in favor of a certain outcome through data altering and wrong
interpretation (Almeida and Goulart, 2017). To prevent these biases and experience from
influencing my data analysis and findings I would employ strategies such as inclusion of only
studies with reasonably valid and associated results, and identification of whether the used data
in the reviews is comparable, which is critical and ensures my question is clear. These
approaches will be essential in helping me avoid including low-quality or irrelevant studies, and
reduce incidences of selective reporting and confirmation bias.
References
Almeida, C. P. B. D., & Goulart, B. N. G. D. (2017). How to avoid bias in systematic reviews of
observational studies.
Revista CEFAC, 19,
551-555.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
7
Bastian. (2020). Steps to reduce bias in systematic review protocols.
https://thepublicationplan.com/2020/07/22/steps-to-reduce-bias-in-systematic-review-
protocols/
Beller, E. M., Glasziou, P. P., Altman, D. G., Hopewell, S., Bastian, H., Chalmers, I., ... &
PRISMA for Abstracts Group. (2013). PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic
reviews in journal and conference abstracts.
PLoS medicine, 10(4),
e1001419.
Furlan, A. D., Pennick, V., Bombardier, C., & van Tulder, M. (2009). 2009 updated method
guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group.
Spine, 34(18),
1929-1941.
Jacques, S., & Wright, R. (2010). Right or wrong? Toward a theory of IRBs’(dis) approval of
research.
Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21(1),
42-59.
Kopelman, L. M. (2004). Minimal risk as an international ethical standard in research.
The
Journal of medicine and philosophy, 29(3),
351-378.
Maher, N. A., Senders, J. T., Hulsbergen, A. F., Lamba, N., Parker, M., Onnela, J. P., ... &
Broekman, M. L. (2019). Passive data collection and use in healthcare: A systematic
review of ethical issues.
International journal of medical informatics, 129,
242-247.