Quantitative Critique of Nursing Research
Name
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date
Quantitative Critique of Nursing Research
Jepma, P., Latour, C. H., Ten Barge, I. H., Verweij, L., Peters, R. J., Scholte op Reimer, W. J., & Buurman, B. M. (2021). Experiences of frail older cardiac patients with a nurse-coordinated transitional care intervention-a qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06719-3
Jepma (2021) has explored a very pertinent topic in the nursing profession or healthcare in general. Examining the effectiveness of an intervention like the Transitional care interventions (TCIs) is key to determining whether it generates the desired outcome or not. The title is relevant to the study because it gives a complete summary of what the paper entails. For instance, this paper is apparently not that kind of research study where intervention is implemented to generate a given outcome or to prove or reject a specific hypothesis. It is just an observational study, in which the authors want to determine the kind of experiences frail older cardiac patients undergoing nurse-coordinated transitional care intervention have to report as the title suggests.
The abstract gives enough detail about the content of the paper in its entirety. As expected, one can just read through the abstract and have a comprehensive overview of the paper. The objective is clearly stated that “this qualitative study explored the experiences of patients’ participating in this study, as part of a larger process evaluation as this might support the interpretation of the neutral study outcomes.” From the method, one knows that the semi-structured interviews were used, a sample of 16 patients ≥70 years was selected, and the inclusion criteria in which the patient to be participating in the TCIs program, fall within the age bracket and is participating in the selected hospitals. Both thematic and quantitative data analyses were used during data analysis. However, the data analysis method used to analyze the quantitative data is not clear, unless one chooses to read more details on the body under data analysis (Astroth & Chung, 2018). Still, it’s not clear at that stage. The result adequately highlights the emerging themes (1) appreciation of care continuity; 2) varying experiences with recovery and, 3) the influence of an existing care network) as well as the varied experience and perceptions of the patients. In the end, the authors conclude that they achieved their objective in which the results contribute to the explanation and evaluation of the intervention.
The body of the paper gives comprehensive details about the study and then elaborates the content of the abstracts. The authors have followed the correct format of a research study where there is the title, abstracts, background, literature review, theoretical framework, methodology (design, sample, data collection, ethical consideration, and data analysis), results, discussion, conclusion, and references. In most cases, the literature review is handled as a subtopic on its own as well as the theoretical framework. However, the authors have not done so in this paper, since we cannot see the section of literature review and theoretical framework. Still, this does not significantly compromise the credibility of the paper because they have highlighted some evidence from the literature in the body (Astroth & Chung, 2018). For instance, according to the paper, the literature has shown TCIs can reduce hospital readmission and mortality in older and chronically ill patients, though they are inconsistencies in the result. This is actually a ground for further studies for clarification.
Sampling is not given in enough detail. They used purposive sampling which could a limitation of the study because it can easily allow a sampling bias. It does not elaborate on how the participants were recruited, who recruited them, and any ethical issues surrounding the recruitments (Cathala & Moorley, 2018). One can only assume that all the protocols were observed because they report having used the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the AMC (Protocol ID: MEC2016_ 024) that outlines the ethical considerations of a study. Besides, a sample of 16 participants is small to give a conclusive or a representative result. The use of structured interviews is an effective method to determine the experience of a patient. However, patients’ experiences may be built on perception which might not be objective (Astroth & Chung, 2018). The authors could have done better to use other secondary sources of data such as physicians’ reviews and opinions to check if they concur with those of the patients. However, this study is just a part of a bigger trial, and what is obtained from it only makes a part of the result of the intervention.
The results are adequately given in table form followed by explanation and discussion. The results seem adequate and credible. The discussion is balanced and detailed as required with the use of multiple data requirements. This is a strength of the paper as it shows convergence with other papers. The study has also acknowledged the limitation and strengths of the study which helps readers to understand what they ought to address in further studies (Cathala & Moorley, 2018). It also guides the creditability evaluation of the papers as such factors are considered. The conclusion is guided by the findings of the papers and has enabled the authors to give relevant recommendations.
References
Jepma, P., Latour, C. H., Ten Barge, I. H., Verweij, L., Peters, R. J., Scholte op Reimer, W. J., & Buurman, B. M. (2021). Experiences of frail older cardiac patients with a nurse-coordinated transitional care intervention-a qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06719-3
Cathala, X., & Moorley, C. (2018). How to appraise quantitative research.
Astroth, K. S., & Chung, S. Y. (2018). Focusing on the fundamentals: Reading quantitative research with a critical eye. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 45(3), 283-287.