NURS 412V USF Critique of Quantitative Nursing & Medical Negligence Discussion

NURS 412V USF Critique of Quantitative Nursing & Medical Negligence Discussion NURS 412V USF Critique of Quantitative Nursing & Medical Negligence Discussion post your responses to at least two (2) peers’ critiques with a substantive, referenced response . Reply back to these 2 article assignments by critiquing it and adding an article that matches theirs to justify it (expand on it) what they have written down. Give more information, that contradicts something in the original study- or supports it. Only write a about 6-8 sentences for the 2 discussions and include the reference. quantitative_article_critique.docx research_project_critique_of_quantitative_nursing_research_1.docx ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS Quantitative Article Critique 1 Quantitative Article Critique Tichina Tam, Allie Osorio, Ayh Ismail University of St. Francis NURS 412V: Nursing Research Dr. Debra Bacharz October 11th, 2020 Quantitative Article Critique 2 1. Research Problem 1a.) Is the problem identified early? – Yes, the problem is identified early. The problem is identified as early as in the first page on the abstract. The objectives state that the purpose of this study was to relate the physicians’ goals for pain management to physician confidence, preferences, and the patients’ satisfaction with the care they received in relation to their chronic pain. In the introduction, it is also stated how pain management is so important because it can impact a patient’s physical and mental well-being, while also having a negative impact on their socioeconomic status. However, pain management can sometimes be skewed due to many factors, including physician’s knowledge deficit and misconceptions regarding proper pain management. 1b.) Is the problem significant, and does the researchers provide a good argument for significance? – Yes, the problem is significant. The problem is that there are instances where physicians are not knowledgeable enough about certain pain management interventions that they end up giving the wrong orders for a patient’s pain management protocol. The researchers do give a good argument for why this problem is so significant because chronic pain can be a very big hindrance on a patient’s everyday life. For example, a patient who has chronic back pain may not be able to do their activities of daily living independently, they may not be able to go to work, etc. 1c.) Is the problem relevant to nursing/health care? – This problem is definitely relevant to nursing and health care. Pain management is something that us, nursing students, are taught at the beginning of the program. That is because pain can have a direct impact on the patient’s baseline vital signs, which is one of the first steps we do during assessment. If a patient is in pain, their vital signs may be skewed, they may be apprehensive to receive a full and thorough physical assessment, therefore leading us nurses to not be able to get a thorough evaluation on their overall health. This problem is not only relevant in nursing, but also all fields of health care in general. As health care professionals, our goal is to make our patients healthy and as comfortable as possible, and if their pain is not able to be properly managed, then one of those goals is not possible to be attained. Quantitative Article Critique 3 2. Literature Review 2a.) Is it convincing that the authors reviewed a sufficient amount of literature? Is the review comprised of only primary sources? Are references current, or a combination of current and classic? – The authors were convincing with the amount of literature they reviewed. They provided 75 different references. This tells me, as the reader, that the researchers took their time to look at different sources to make sure that their data is not biased. NURS 412V USF Critique of Quantitative Nursing & Medical Negligence Discussion They also provided a table with data that calculated the frequency that each physician treated specific patients with chronic pain and if those patients kept coming back for follow-up for their pain. The review is comprised of both primary and secondary sources. The primary sources are from those that have a direct connection with the study, whereas the secondary sources are more focused on analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of the study. The references are a combination of current and classic. 2b.) Is the review balanced, presenting literature that supports and that differs from the researcher’s position? The review is pretty well balanced. This is because it provides data from physicians that were found to provide care that ended in complete pain relief for their patients, while also providing data from physicians that did not provide absolute pain relief. The researchers gathered data through a point system. A 1 would equal complete pain relief, whereas a 5 reports no pain relief. Through this data collection system, the researchers were able to get a rough estimate of an average of how well these physicians were able to provide therapeutics to their patient in relation to their chronic pain. 2c.) Is the review written critically, presenting both strengths and weaknesses of previous work? – The review is not written critically. It does not present strengths and weaknesses of previous work in relation to the literature that was referenced at the bottom. The study only used the results they had gotten from the questionnaire they presented the physicians with and compared it to their references. If the review were to be written critically, they would have further analyzed the studies that were referenced and talked about why those studies were either correct or wrong. They also could have gone one step further by talking about how those referenced studies related to the current study they are conducting. However, it seems like that may have not been possible or else the study would be too long since they used 75 different references. Quantitative Article Critique 4 Theoretical Framework 3a.) Is a theoretical framework specified? – A theoretical framework is “the structure of a study that links the theory concepts to the study variables.” (Schmidt & Brown, 2019, p.529). Knowing this, the theoretical framework is specified. It includes the background, objective, research design, subjects, measures, results, and conclusion. 3b.) If so, does the framework “fit” the problem? Does it include all relevant variables? Are the concepts clearly defined? Are the results interpreted in reference to the theoretical framework? – Yes, the framework does fit the problem. Everything was well organized and navigating the article was no problem. The first few sections that included the background, objective, research design, subjects, and measures were easy to read. I did not have trouble understanding the information that was presented within the study article. NURS 412V USF Critique of Quantitative Nursing & Medical Negligence Discussion What was interesting was the information that was included in the results included more information than just the results from the study they performed. What I mean by this is that yes, they did provide the readers with the results as far as how satisfied the patients were with the pain management protocol they were presented with, but they also included information such as who provided the care, the physicians thoughts and attitudes towards chronic pain management, and how well chronic pain amongst the patients were managed. I believe these variables are all important. For example, how satisfied the patients were is important because of course, they are the ones that are experiencing the pain and their subjective information is what tells us if the pain management was therapeutic. Who provided the care is important because it was shown that younger doctors were shown to provide better pain management care because they asked patients more questions and were more thorough during assessment. 3c.) If not, should there be one? Is it difficult to understand the relationships among the variables in the study without a framework to tie the pieces together? – The framework was already present. Variables/Hypothesis 4a.) Are the variables in the study appropriate to the problem? Are they relevant to nursing practice? Are the means to measure the variables appropriate? – The variables in the study are appropriate for the article, all the details and the data were explained thoroughly. According to the Evidence Based Practice for Nurses it states, “descriptive statistics: collection and presentation of data that explain characteristics of variables found in the sample” (Schmidt & Brown, 2019, p. 332). In the article they choose descriptive statistics to explain the data that was collected. In the article as well, the data was broken down and they explained what each part meant, which I thought was very helpful because I have a hard time understanding Quantitative Article Critique 5 what each number represents. The variables used in the study were appropriate and relevant to nursing practice. The means of measure for the article is appropriate for the information provided in the study. It is appropriate because it provides all accurate data to complete the study, related to chronic pain. 4b.) Are hypotheses stated? If so, what are they? Are they clear, specific and testable? – After reading the article and breaking it down into different sections, I noticed that the hypothesis was not clearly stated. In the abstract of the article, it contained a small section that had the background, objectives, research design, subject, measures, results and conclusion. 4c.) If not, do(es) the researcher(s) provide sufficient information to determine what the hypotheses were? – The article does not state the hypothesis, but through the abstract, information, and readings of the article, I was able to determine what the hypothesis was. In the article, it states, “In particular, we were interested in: 1) Determining which physicians treat chronic pain; 2) Evaluating the quality of chronic pain management; 3) Determining whether differences in chronic pain management are related to physician characteristics (i.e., race and ethnicity, age, gender, education, and their personal experiences with pain); and 4) Evaluating differences in physician decision making based upon physician knowledge and attitudes.” (Green, Wheeler, LaPorte, Marchant, Guerrero, 2002). Even though the hypothesis was not clearly stated, we were able to understand the main reasons of the study for the hypothesis. Design 5a.) What design was used? Is the design specified correctly? Is the design appropriate to answer the research question? – The design that was used for this article was a survey. The patients were asked to complete a survey that they received in the mail and sent back through the US postage envelope. NURS 412V USF Critique of Quantitative Nursing & Medical Negligence Discussion The survey was sent through the mail, and it states in the article ”Subsequent follow-up of non-responders entailed reminder postcards and two follow-up mailings of the survey to encourage their participation” (Green, Wheeler, LaPorte, Marchant, Guerrero, 2002). The researchers used these postcards to remind the participants not to forget about the survey that was sent to them. The Research Team used this technique to remind the patient not to forget about the survey and to throw it away. I believe there is one downfall to the survey being sent home because anyone can just fill out randomly, due to not wanting to have it be something to worry and forget about. Also, someone can just easily fill it out for the patient with inaccurate information. But, sending the patient home can also be a benefit of the survey because while patients have chronic pain they want to be in a relaxing spot which is usually their home, so I can also understand why the study was being sent home. The study did use appropriate design because they choose what would be best for the patients in order to ease the pain. 5b.) Did the researcher(s) attempt to control for threats to internal and external validity? How did the researcher(s) do this? – I believe the researchers did not attempt to control internal or external threats. One of the main reasons being that the survey was sent in the mail because the researcher might Quantitative Article Critique 6 not know who actually filled out the survey. This can result in false/ basic information not only for the researcher, but also the community as a whole because these studies could have helped other humans around the world suffering from the same pain they might be having. The race, ethnicity, age, gender of patients were all chosen and assessed by Chi-Square analysis (Green, Wheeler, LaPorte, Marchant, Guerrero, 2002). This is important because of the inappropriate age chosen to study. With aging chronic pain can be more common because we become weaker. This is how the researchers did not control internal and external validity. Sample/Ethical Considerations 6a.) Is the sample size adequate? Are the criteria for including and/or excluding people or items from the sample clear and appropriate? – The sample size for the study was adequate. During the study it stated that there were 368 physicians. 228 were primary and 133 were specialty doctors. It doesn’t state the exact number of patients that participated in the study, and also the study size was not distributed evenly along ages. The ages in this study included 24, 74, 68, and 35, and all of these patients had chronic pain. The patients that had chronic pain that had to do with sickle cell anemia (SCA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), arachnoiditis (ARC), and degenerative joint disease (DJD). 6b.) Is the sample likely to be similar to members of the target population? – In the article, it did not state the target population, but what it did state is that there is three hundred and sixty eight Michigan physicians that participated in the study. Also, it did not state the total population of the population included in the study. In order to find the total number of participates in the study in the data I would have count each participant and their responses. 6c.) Do(es) the researcher(s) indicate that approval was obtained from appropriate review boards? Were the rights of human subjects protected (i.e., is there indication of informed consent, confidentiality, freedom from coercion)? – In the article it states that this study was supported by a grant from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation of Michigan, Detroit, Michigan. It also stated that The Institutional Review Board approved this study. Reading both the support and the approval of the study showed me how important and interested the Researchers were in the study. NURS 412V USF Critique of Quantitative Nursing & Medical Negligence Discussion Something else that caught my eye was the approval of the grant because research can be very expensive, however, in this study there was a grant given to them to help with their research. This leads me to believe that in this research, money was not exactly an obstacle. In the article, it did not state that there was a consent form that they had to sign, but it did say all the information was confidential. It also stated in the article that the treatment and attitude were made using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Based on the information in the article even though there wasn’t a content form stated in the article there was information that started it was confidential. I think that this is a downfall to the article because patient approval is something that always needs to be taken before starting the study. 6d.) Is there any possibility that the subjects might have felt pressured to participate or their responses influenced in some other way? Quantitative Article Critique – 7 I do not think the patients may have been pressured to participate in the study. There were different patients with different pain levels and pain in different locations. The patient pain in this article had to do with chronic pain in the joints due to rheumatoid arthritis, low back pain due to degenerative joint disease, low back pain due to arachnoiditis and joint pain due to sickle cell anemia. I don’t think that any of the patients in the study were pressured; they were all just trying to control their pain. Something else as well is that the patients were asked to rate their pain with the different dose of opioids that was given to each patient. I believe that the patients wanted to be participants in the study. Data Collection 7a.) Are the instruments or other means for data collection described sufficiently? Are the reliability and validity of the instruments addressed? Are the reliability and validity of the instruments adequate? – Yes, the instruments and other means for data collection was described sufficiently. They used a questionnaire on 368 Michigan physicians who provide clinical care. Through this questionnaire, they used a points-based system to measure how well the physicians were able to give therapeutic pain management to their patients. The reliability and validity of the instruments used were also addressed. They were adequate because they took into consideration many different factors such as physicians age, sex, experience, race, etc. 7b.) Are data collection methods described early? Are these appropriate? – Yes, the data collection methods were described as early as the study framework. This is appropriate because it gives the reader an idea of how this study is being done prior to actually reading about it during the introduction or the background, for example. 7c.) Could the researcher(s) have affected the results of the study in some way related to the collection of data? – The research in some way could have affected the results of the study. NURS 412V USF Critique of Quantitative Nursing & Medical Negligence Discussion First, the study participants were not stated properly which could have affected the study because it is not clear on how many patients are included in the study. Also, when the survey was sent home there would have been bias there because the information might now have been accurate. The patients were also chosen by Chi-Square analysis and the ages for the patient that participated in the study were very different in ages which could have affected the study because age/ health can affect the way a patient reacts to pain. These are some ways the research could have been affected. Data Analysis 8a.) What was the process used to analyze data? Was the process clear? Was the process for data analysis appropriate to answer the research question? – The process used to analyze data was by distributions, means, and confidence intervals. To also analyze the data collected they utilized T-tests to examine the differences with the treatment of physicians that included mean age and the number of education programs attended (Green, Wheeler, LaPorte, Marchant, Guerrero, Quantitative Article Critique 8 2002). They also used Pearson’s correlation coefficients for the association between the attitudes of physicians and their treatment choices. The Chi-Square and McNamar’s test were assessed for the influence of patient demographics. They had participants rate the relief of their pain with 0 being no pain relief at and 5 being absolute and complete pain relief. The process to me was not clear because it was a little difficult to read and understand the tables included in this study. The study did not clearly state the research question. Instead, they named a couple of things they were focusing on with this study. They focused on four main things: 1. Which physicians treat chronic pain 2. Evaluating how chronic pain is managed, 3.The differences between physician’s race, ethnicity, age, gender, education, and personal experiences with pain related to the management of chronic pain 4. Evaluating if there are differences between the physician’s attitudes and knowledge based on their decision making. The process did answer the research questions, but the analysis of data was a little unclear. 8b.) Do the results provide an answer to the research question? – Yes, the results proved that some physicians do not have the proper knowledge to enforce proper pain management therapeutic effects. 8c.) If tables are provided, are these clear and understandable? – There are multiple tables provided in the study. There is a table that breaks down the pain that occurs from Sickle Cell Anemia (SCA), Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), Arachnoiditis (ARC), and Degenerative Joint Disease (DJD). This is a table of patients’ pain that is rated from worst, poor, fair and best. There was also another big chart that also had ( N, Mean, 95% confidence, Interval Lower bound, Upper bound). When looking at it I was confused because I did not know if I understood everything correctly. After all of this, I don’t believe the tables were thoroughly explain … Purchase answer to see full attachment Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool’s honor code & terms of service . Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10

RECOMMENDED: Alabama A&M University Nursing Quantitative Article Critique Paper