Furthermore, the data collection is also viable, and fulfils the requirements of the study. The data was collected from various Indigenous nations such as NSW, Queensland, Tasmania and West Australia (Smith et al., 2023, p.629), hence reducing selection bias, which contributes to quality (Scholtz et al., 2021). Another strength is the determination of non-biased relationship between the researchers and participants, as one of the semi-structured interviews was conducted face-to-face, however, 11 semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom (Smith et al., 2023, p.630). According to Turner and Hagstrom-Schmidt (2022), determining the researcher-participant relationship is another viable strategy to reduce biases and initiate open conversation.
Another important quality criteria is the consideration of ethical aspects in the study. According to Smith et al. (2023, p. 629), the researchers obtained ethical permission from the Human Research Ethics Committee and the NSW Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council, to ensure the safety of data. Laothavorn et al. (2019) has also emphasised on the importance of obtaining ethical approval before collecting data, as it imitates that the risks have been deemed and ensures the right use of data. Similarly, Bourassa et al. (2020) has mentioned that it is important to maintain ethical protocols (i.e. consent, respect) while working with Indigenous people. Therefore, this is another strength of this article assessed via CASP.
Data analysis is another important aspect evaluated for a quality check. There are various ways to analyse data quantitatively, but the best method to date is to analyse data thematically (Terry & Hayfield, 2021). This is because thematic analysis helps in generating themes from the results, and eases data interpretation (Jowsey et al., 2021). In this research, the data was analysed thematically, and presented 4 themes and 2 sub-themes to answer the research question (Smith et al., 2023, p. 630). This is a strength of this study, demonstrating that the analysis has been correctly performed.
The findings section of a research paper imitates the results found by the researchers and is significant while testing hypothesis (Malmqvist et al., 2019). The CASP checklist also evaluates the presence of findings statements in a research for quality-check. The chosen paper has presented a clear statement of findings in the discussion section, revealing the four identified themes (ancestors, family, country and belief in God) (Smith et al., 2023, p. 631) hence advocating for the strength of this study.
Moreover, the CASP tool has also assisted in analysing the significance of the chosen study, which has been identified as highly valuable. This is because this research will be helpful for healthcare providers to understand the importance of spirituality and its connection with healing amongst the Indigenous communities (Smith et al., 2023, p. 626). According to Smith et al. (2023, p. 631) the participants also emphasised on the research significance, by imitating that it is viable for mental healthcare providers, and will allow them to consider the role of spirituality while providing therapeutic treatments to Indigenous patients.
Out of the 10 items on the checklist, all 10 items meet the quality standards, concluding that the study can be implemented in a real-world setting.
Critical appraisal of the Quantitative article:
Determining the inclusion criteria in a research significantly impacts the outcomes of the study, hence it is important to justify the inclusion criteria while collecting data (Andrade, 2021). In the chosen quantitative study, the inclusion criteria has been well-defined. The researchers have revealed the inclusion measures, such as selecting patients from inpatient and outpatient settings, and from 3 wards (oncology, radiation and hematology) (Scanlon et al., 2023, p. 111). Furthermore, the researchers have also included patients from a cancer-care hospital in Queensland Australia (Scanlon et al., 2023, p. 111), and have also demonstrated the demographic inclusion criteria such as age gender, religion, marital status, employment, and educational level (Scanlon et al., 2023, p. 113). This information is associated with the inclusion criteria of the participants and contributes towards the strength of the study.
The second item in the JBI checklist as shown in appendix 2, refers to the subject and setting of the study. According to Aromataris and Munn (2020), the researchers need to explain the setting such as the location of data collection, time etc. Moreover, it has been further reported, that the subject should also be mentioned, to give readers the context. In the chosen article, the subject was clearly defined and the setting was well-informed, such as the location of the cancer care hospital (Queensland), selection from inpatient and outpatient units, the oncology, haematology and radiation units, and the time of survey between 10 May and 31 July 2021 (Scanlon et al., 2023, p. 111).
The next item in the JBI checklist refers to the measurement of exposure by a valid and reliable means. In this study, the exposure was validated and reliably measured, as the survey was extracted from the standard survey questionnaire for assessing vaccine hesitancy, WHO. Moreover, the questions were also prepared by the SAGE group, WHO (Scanlon et al., 2023, p.111). Referring to Skevington et al. (2021), WHO survey standards are approved worldwide, and cater for exceptional research quality, ensuring that the exposure is valid and reliably measured.
According to Aromataris and Munn (2020), another important aspect is the evaluation of the diagnostic methods to measure the condition, such as inducing a specific group of patients while conducting a study on a specific disease. In the mean article, the cancer patients were contacted for data collection and were chosen from three outpatient and two inpatient treatment units, from the medical oncology, radiation and haematology departments (Scanlon et al., 2023, p.111). This justifies non-biasedness and relates to the objective, which was to investigate vaccine hesitancy, informational needs and acceptance among cancer patients in Australia (Scanlon et al., 2023, p.110). This proves that the measurement of the condition meets the quality criteria of the checklist.
The next item in the JBI checklist is the identification of confounding factors, as they significantly impact research inclination (Aromataris & Munn, 2020). The chosen study has identified certain confounding factors associated directly with the exposure and the outcomes of the study, such as post-transplant immunodeficiency, tailored vaccination and information requirement, and blood clotting factors (Scanlon et al., 2023, p. 114). This is another strength of this article, providing a depth to the readers and might assist the healthcare workers to find deep-rooted solutions.
