Find and Critique Supporting Articles

Sample Answer

Introduction

Statement of problem

• Is the problem easy to identify?
• Is it significant for nursing?
• Is the research design appropriate for the problem?
• Is there a clear need for the study? The problem of the study is easy to identify.

This can be seen from the review of literature that identified gaps in studies conducted in the past. The problem is significant to nursing because it informs the utilization of the intervention in promoting oral care in extubated patients. The research design is appropriate for the problem. It allowed the determination of the effectiveness of the intervention by comparing the outcomes in the control and intervention group. There is a clear need for the study based on the limited evidence on the effectiveness of the intervention in promoting optimum oral health for post-mechanically ventilated patients.

Hypotheses or research questions

• Are the questions or hypotheses explicitly stated? If not, is their absence explained?
• Can you easily identify the variables the way the questions or hypotheses are worded?

The researchers did not state research questions or hypotheses. The reason for the absence of these components has not been given.

Literature Review

• Is the literature review up-to-date and based mostly on primary sources?
• Did the review adequately summarize the evidence?
• Does the literature review make it clear there is a need for a study of this kind?

The literature review is up-to date. This can be seen from the primary sources that have been utilized. A majority of them were published within five years from the year 2016. However, the use of old sources of data such as those dated 2006 weakens the strength of the reviewed literature. There is adequate summary of evidence. The researchers summarized the studies conducted on the topic and identified the areas of further research, thereby, increasing the relevance of their proposal. Therefore, they made clear the need for their research.

Conceptual/theoretical framework

• Is the conceptual or theoretical frame clearly identified?

The use of conceptual or theoretical framework is not evidence in the research. Instead, the researchers developed a protocol that guided their study.

Method

Protection of human rights

• Were rights of the study participants protected?
• Was the study externally reviewed by an IRB or ethics review board?
• Was the study clearly designed to minimize risks and maximize benefits to the participants?

The rights of the participants were protected. The participants provided their consent prior to participating in it. The study was reviewed by the Ohio State University Institutional Review Board. There was not external institution involved in approving the research. The study was intended to minimize risks while maximizing the benefits to the participants. The researchers ensured that the intervention had minimal adverse outcomes to the researchers. There were optimum benefits associated with the intervention.

Research Design

• Was the most rigorous design used given the purpose of the study?
• Was the number of data collection points appropriate?
• Did the design minimize biases and threats to study validity by using blinding and minimizing attrition?

The research design was rigorous to meet the purpose of the study. It allowed for the determination of the effect of the intervention on the population. It also allowed for minimization of the effects of confounding factors on the outcomes. The number of data collection points was appropriate as they allowed for the determination of the effect and not the influence of other factors. The use of the randomization in the adopted design in the research-minimized bias since there was equal chance for participation in it.

Population and sample

• Was the population identified?
• Was the sample described in adequate detail?
• Were sampling biases minimized?
• Was the sample size adequate?

The population was identified to be post-mechanical ventilation patients. The sample was described in adequate detail using the inclusion and exclusion criteria. They were also described based on their health status. The sample biases were minimized using randomization. However, the sample size might be argued to have been small. The use of 74 participants makes it difficult to generalize the findings to a larger population.

Data collection and measurement

• Were key variables measured using an appropriate method (interviews, observations, etc.)?
• Were the instruments identified?
• Did the report provide evidence that the methods were reliable, valid, and responsive?

The variables were measured using appropriate methods. Subjective data was obtained using interviews while objective data such as R-THROAT was obtained using pre-developed measures of oral health. Laboratory investigations were also performed to determine the effectiveness of the intervention. The instruments of data collection included questionnaires, R-THROAT instrument, and ESAS-r for assessment of symptom burden. The research provided report on the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the instruments. This can be seen in the stability in findings that were obtained prior and after the study.

Procedures

• If there was an intervention, was it well described?
• Did most of the participants allocated to the intervention group actually receive it?
• Was data collected in a non-bias manner?
• Were the individuals collecting data appropriately trained so they did not impact the results?

The intervention that was used is explained explicitly in the research. Those participants who were allocated to the intervention group received the intervention. They were all administered with the intervention with the aim of determining the effect among them. The data was collected objectively from them, hence, being non-biased. In-service training was offered to the participants to ensure uniformity and accuracy of the data being obtained from the research.

Identify Statistical Tests

• Bivariate (e.g., t-test, ANOVA, Pearson’s r)

The tests included t-tests, Fisher’s exact test, and chi-square. Regression analysis was also performed to determine the impact of the intervention on oral care.

• Multivariate (e.g., multiple regression, logistic regression)

Summarize findings, limitations, and recommendations

Summary of study main points and learnings

• What is the effect size?
• Is the study statistically significant?
• Is the study clinically significant?
• What are the recommendations for future studies?

There was a medium size effect of the intervention. The study was clinically significant since there was an overall improvement in the outcomes with the use of the intervention. Therefore, the intervention can be utilized in practice. The study was not statistically significant. This can be seen in the small sample size that was utilized in the research.

References

• Chipps, E. M., Carr, M., Kearney, R., MacDermott, J., Von Visger, T., Calvitti, K., … & Harper, D. (2016). Outcomes of an oral care protocol in postmechanically ventilated patients. Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing, 13(2), 102-111.