Critical appraisal of two qualitative hypertension studies
A 1,000 to 1,250 word essay demonstrating comprehension of two named research studies on hypertension, one a systematic review of the dietary approaches to stop hypertension diet in adolescents and the other a qualitative study of non-adherence to hypertension treatment, summarising both, explaining the ways the findings might be used in nursing practice, and addressing the ethical considerations associated with the conduct of the studies, organised under the headings in the Research Critique Guidelines document.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 13, 2026
Appraise what you were given
The assignment says two qualitative studies and then names one article that is a systematic review of quantitative work and another that is genuinely qualitative, which is a mismatch you have to handle rather than ignore. Two responses are defensible. You can appraise both as given, noting explicitly that the first is a review of quantitative studies and adjusting the critique questions accordingly, since asking a systematic review about its sampling of participants makes no sense while asking about its search strategy, inclusion criteria and synthesis method does. Or you can ask your instructor whether to substitute a qualitative article. What you should not do is apply qualitative critique headings mechanically to a review and produce answers that are not about the study in front of you. Saying in your introduction which route you took, and why, turns a problem into evidence of judgement. A marker who knows the articles will be looking for whether you noticed.
The critique guidelines set out a long list of questions and the brief tells you to address them as a narrative in the structure of a formal paper, not as a numbered list of answers. That instruction changes the writing substantially. A narrative means each section of the guidelines becomes a paragraph or two of connected prose in which the questions are answered in a sensible order, with the ones that matter for this particular study given more room than the ones that do not. Some questions will have short answers and some will have none, and where a study does not report something, saying so is itself a finding rather than a gap in your work. A paper that says nothing about researcher bias because the authors said nothing has failed to notice something worth reporting. Give the sections that matter for these two studies more room than the ones that do not.
Ethical considerations carry their own heading and the guidelines ask several distinct questions under it, so give it a proper section rather than a sentence about approval. Institutional review board or ethics committee approval is the first and easiest to check. Informed consent is second, and worth reporting in detail for a qualitative interview study, since consent to be interviewed about non-adherence is more complicated than it appears: participants are being asked to disclose behaviour their clinicians would disapprove of, which raises questions about who has access to the transcripts and whether care could be affected. Voluntariness is third, and recruitment through a treating clinician creates a real risk that participation feels expected. Benefits and risks are fourth, and the guidelines ask pointedly whether there were risks the authors did not identify. Say who could identify a participant from the transcript and what protection was described.
The use in nursing practice section is where most papers become generic and it is the easiest place to distinguish yourself. Avoid the closing sentence that findings can inform patient education. Ask instead what specifically a nurse would do differently on Monday morning having read these studies. A study of why patients do not take antihypertensives may identify beliefs about the medication, cost, side effects, absence of symptoms, or a mismatch between the patient's explanatory model and the clinician's, and each of those points to a different intervention. A review of a dietary approach in adolescents raises a different question about who the intervention reaches and whether the effect sizes justify the effort. Say which findings transfer to your practice population and which do not, since qualitative findings are transferable rather than generalisable. Name the finding first and the action second, so the link between them is visible.
On execution, keep to 1,000 to 1,250 words, which is tight for two studies plus ethics plus practice implications, so plan the allocation before drafting and resist summarising at length. No abstract is required. Use the guidelines document for the headings and follow them in order. Cite the two articles properly and note that both have full citations in the assignment itself, which are worth checking against the databases since scraped reference strings frequently contain broken links. Prepare the paper according to your style guide, and expect a similarity check, so paraphrase the studies genuinely rather than lightly rewording their abstracts. Plan the word allocation across the four sections before drafting, since 1,250 words is not much for two studies, ethics and practice implications together. Summarise briefly and appraise at length, since the appraisal is what carries the marks and a long summary crowds it out of the word count entirely.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Notice and handle the mismatch between the brief's description and the named articles.
- 02Adapt critique questions to the design actually in front of you.
- 03Write the appraisal as narrative prose under the guideline headings.
- 04Treat unreported information as a finding.
- 05Address ethics through approval, consent, voluntariness and unidentified risks.
- 06State what a nurse would do differently, and to which population it transfers.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
Important information for writing discussion questions and participation Hi Class, Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts. Contact me if you have any questions. Important information on Writing a Discussion Question Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references) There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article. Include in-text citations in your response Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information Follow APA-7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week. Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references) Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count. Follow APA 7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points. Here are some helpful links Student paper example Citing Sources The Writing Center is a great resource Welcome to class Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to. I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you. Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted. If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations. Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements. Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week. I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course!
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A summary of both named studies.
- 02An explanation of ways the findings might be used in nursing practice.
- 03The ethical considerations associated with the conduct of each study.
- 04Rationale, examples and referenced content from the studies.
- 051,000 to 1,250 words under the Research Critique Guidelines headings, no abstract required.
Narrative, not a question list
Introduction and approach
The two studies, their designs, and how you handled the description mismatch.
Background and problem
Hypertension as the practice problem and how each study relates to it.
Study one: the review
Question, search strategy, inclusion criteria, synthesis and findings.
Study two: the qualitative study
Question, sampling, data collection, analysis and rigour.
What was not reported
Bias measures, audit trail, limitations the authors omitted.
Ethical considerations
Approval, consent, voluntariness, benefits and unidentified risks for each study.
Use in nursing practice
Specific actions the findings would change, by finding.
Transferability
Which findings apply to your practice population and which do not.
The two named articles
Recommended databases
- The two named articles
- The Research Critique Guidelines document
- CINAHL and PubMed
- Research ethics guidance
Search sequence
- 1.Retrieve both articles in full and confirm their designs before writing anything.
- 2.Check the citations given in the assignment against the databases, since scraped links often break.
- 3.Read the guidelines document and map its questions to each study's design.
- 4.Read the methods sections twice, once for what is reported and once for what is not.
- 5.Read guidance on consent and voluntariness in interview studies of treatment behaviour.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Essential Hypertension
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
The clinical problem both studies address, which the appraisal needs in order to judge practice relevance.
- 02
Research Ethics
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Approval, consent, voluntariness and risk assessment, which are the four questions the ethics section must answer.
- 03
Nursing Professional Development Evidence-Based Practice
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
How appraised evidence becomes a practice change, which is what the use-in-practice section has to demonstrate.
- 04
Hypertension Clinical Trials
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024
The quantitative evidence base the systematic review synthesises, useful for judging the review's inclusion criteria.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Applying qualitative critique questions mechanically to a systematic review.
- Ignoring the mismatch between the brief's description and the articles.
- Producing a numbered list of answers rather than narrative prose.
- Passing over what a study failed to report.
- Reducing the ethics section to a sentence about approval.
- Ignoring the consent complications of interviewing about non-adherence.
- Concluding that findings can inform patient education.
- Claiming qualitative findings generalise rather than transfer.
- Summarising at length and leaving no room for appraisal.
Submission checklist
- The design of each named article is identified correctly.
- The mismatch with the brief's description is addressed in the introduction.
- Critique questions are adapted to each study's actual design.
- The appraisal is narrative prose under the guideline headings.
- Search strategy and synthesis method are appraised for the review.
- Sampling, data collection and analysis are appraised for the qualitative study.
- Unreported elements such as researcher bias measures are named as findings.
- Ethics covers approval, informed consent, voluntariness and risks.
- Risks the authors did not identify are considered.
- Recruitment through treating clinicians is examined for voluntariness.
- Practice implications name specific actions, not patient education generally.
- Transferability rather than generalisability is claimed for the qualitative findings.
- 1,000 to 1,250 words, no abstract, both articles cited and checked.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.