When reviewing the discussion section of an original article, an infection preventionist must focus on critically evaluating the interpretation of the study findings, their relevance to infection control, and their implications for practice. The discussion section typically addresses the meaning of the results, compares them to existing literature, and considers limitations or alternative interpretations. The appropriate question should align with the purpose of this section and reflect the infection preventionist's need to assess the validity and applicability of the research. Let’s analyze each option:
A. Was the correct sample size and analysis method chosen?: This question pertains to the methodology section of a research article, where the study design, sample size, and statistical methods are detailed. While these elements are critical for assessing the study's rigor, they are not the primary focus of the discussion section, which interprets results rather than re-evaluating the study design. An infection preventionist might ask this during a review of the methods section, but it is less relevant here.
B. Could alternative explanations account for the observed results?: The discussion section often explores whether the findings can be explained by factors other than the hypothesized cause, such as confounding variables, bias, or chance. This question is highly appropriate for an infection preventionist, as it encourages a critical assessment of whether the results truly support infection control interventions or if other factors (e.g., environmental conditions, patient factors) might be responsible. This aligns with CBIC's emphasis on evidence-based practice, where understanding the robustness of conclusions is key to applying research to infection prevention strategies.
C. Is the study question important, appropriate, and stated clearly?: This question relates to the introduction or background section of an article, where the research question and its significance are established. While important for overall study evaluation, it is not specific to the discussion section, which focuses on interpreting results rather than revisiting the initial question. An infection preventionist might consider this earlier in the review process, but it does not fit the context of the discussion section.
D. Are criteria used to measure the exposure and the outcome explicit?: This question is relevant to the methods section, where the definitions and measurement tools for exposures (e.g., a specific intervention) and outcomes (e.g., infection rates) are described. The discussion section may reference these criteria but focuses more on their implications rather than their clarity. This makes it less appropriate for the discussion section specifically.
The discussion section is where authors synthesize their findings, address limitations, and consider alternative explanations, making option B the most fitting. For an infection preventionist, evaluating alternative explanations is crucial to ensure that recommended practices (e.g., hand hygiene protocols or sterilization techniques) are based on solid evidence and not confounded by unaddressed variables. This critical thinking is consistent with CBIC's focus on applying research to improve infection control outcomes.
References:
CBIC Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) Core Competency Model (updated 2023), Domain I: Identification of Infectious Disease Processes, which emphasizes critical evaluation of research evidence.
CBIC Examination Content Outline, Domain V: Management and Communication, which includes assessing the validity of research findings for infection control decision-making.
