Health research is essential to improving the quality of care and patient outcomes. However, not all research is created equal. It is important to be able to critique nursing research in order to identify the strongest evidence to inform practice.
There are a number of key elements to consider when critiquing nursing research. These include:
– The problem or question being addressed
– The study design
– The population and sample
– Data collection methods
– Data analysis
– Findings and conclusions
Each of these elements should be carefully considered in order to determine the strengths and weaknesses of a study. By critically appraising nursing research, we can ensure that we are using the best evidence available to inform our practice.
The aim of this essay is to highlight certain aspects of the clinical nursing research paper written by Carlee Lehna and Jack McNeil. I’ll define and discuss these elements. There are literature reviews in clinical research reports that give background information on the issue and research performed in the study, as well as why it was necessary to investigate it (Burnes & Grove, 2011). This study’s literature review explains why English-speaking only people had poorer health literacy than non-English speaking only persons.
Health literacy is important in order for patients to be able to adhere to their care plan and take an active role in their own health (Burnes & Grove, 2011). Lehna and McNeil’s study found that there was a significant difference between the two groups, with English speaking patients having better health literacy than non-English speaking patients.
The problem statement explains what the purpose of the study is and should state the research question(s) being addressed in the study (Burnes & Grove, 2011). In this study, the problem statement is clear and concise. The authors explain that the purpose of the study was to compare health literacy levels of English speaking only patients and non-English speaking only patients. The research question being addressed is whether or not there is a difference in health literacy between these two groups of patients.
The study design should be described in detail, including the setting, participants, and procedures (Burnes & Grove, 2011). The authors explain that the setting for this study was an urban teaching hospital in the northeastern United States. The participants were English and non-English speaking patients who were over the age of 18 and had been seen by a primary care provider within the past year.
Patients were excluded if they did not have access to a telephone or if they could not understand English or Spanish. Patients who met the inclusion criteria were asked to participate in a phone survey. If they agreed to participate, they were given a study identification number and scheduled for a phone interview. The procedures for this study were clearly described and easy to follow.
The authors should discuss the ethical considerations of the study, including obtaining informed consent from participants (Burnes & Grove, 2011). Informed consent forms were given to all patients who agreed to participate in the study. The forms explained the purpose of the study, what would be required of participants, and that participation was voluntary. Patients were given the opportunity to ask questions before they decided whether or not to participate. The authors also obtained approval from the Institutional Review Board before conducting the study.
The data analysis plan should be described in detail, including how the data will be collected and analyzed (Burnes & Grove, 2011). The authors explain that data will be collected through a telephone survey. Patients will be asked questions about their demographics, health literacy, and general health. The data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential statistics.
The results of the study should be presented in a clear and concise manner (Burnes & Grove, 2011). The authors present the results of the study in a clear and easy to understand manner. They discuss the demographic information of the participants, the Health Literacy Scale scores for both groups of patients, and the differences between the two groups.
The authors should discuss the implications of the study findings (Burnes & Grove, 2011). The authors discuss the implications of the findings in relation to patient education and health literacy. They explain that the findings of the study can be used to improve patient education and help healthcare providers better understand the needs of their patients.
The authors should also discuss the limitations of the study (Burnes & Grove, 2011). The authors discuss several limitations of the study, including the small sample size, the use of a single Health Literacy Scale, and the fact that the study was conducted in a single hospital.
Burns & McNeil indicate that the worse outcomes of their children were associated with their parents’ low health literacy (Lehna & McNeil, 2008). The goal of this research is to quantify the difference in health literacy between two groups of parents who speak different languages: English and Spanish.
In this study, the problem is that some parents have poor health literacy and, as a result, their children have poorer outcomes. To fix this problem, the authors are going to measure the difference in health literacy in two groups of different language speaking parents (Lehna & McNeil, 2008).
The authors use a quantitative design with a focus on measuring the level of health literacy (Lehna & McNeil, 2008). The population for this study is low-income English and Spanish speaking parents with at least one child under the age of six who live in Los Angeles County (Lehna & McNeil, 2008). A convenience sample was used consisting of fifty English speaking parents and fifty Spanish speaking parents (Lehna & McNeil, 2008). The setting for this study was Los Angeles County (Lehna & McNeil, 2008).
The Health Literacy Test-Short Form (HLT-SF) was used as the primary data collection tool in this study (Lehna & McNeil, 2008). This test is a reliable and valid measure of functional health literacy (Lehna & McNeil, 2008).
The HLT-SF consists of six items that are each read aloud to the participants who are then asked to answer questions about the passage (Lehna & McNeil, 2008). A score of zero indicates no understanding of the passage while a score of five indicates complete understanding of the passage (Lehna & McNeil, 2008).