"Use of Water-Filled Gloves in Preventing Heel Pressure Ulcer" is a wonderful example of a paper on care. (a). Is the study exclusively qualitative or exclusively quantitative? The study employed the use of both qualitative and quantitative approaches to collect data. “ Quantitative data were generated through administration of semi-structured questionnaires whereas qualitative data were collected through the in-depth interview (Adejumo & Ingwu, 2010). ” (b). If so, could the study have been strengthened by incorporating both approaches? The study was actually strengthened by the incorporation. This is so because the quantitative data collected from the questionnaires was explained using the qualitative data from the interview hence making the research results clear and concise. (a).
If the study used a mixed-methods (MM) design, did the inclusion of both approaches contribute to enhanced validity? The mixed-method approach used in this study cemented the research findings and made validation of the data much easier and hence truthful. The fact that two different approaches were employed acted to complement the results hence making them valid (Denise & Beck, 2013). (b). What other ways (if any) did the inclusion of both types of data strengthen the study and further the aims of the research? The research approaches acted to increase in-depth probing of the research question and the hypothesis which enabled data to increase and become practical.
The business common in research was reduced by the complementary approaches (Denise & Beck, 2013). (a). If the study used an MM approach, what was the design— how were the components sequenced, and which had priority? There is no one approach that had more priority than the other as they were used in a complementary and not a competitive manner.
The cross-sectional design suited each approach. (b). Was this design appropriate? The design was appropriate as it cut across age, gender, and educational qualification making the data collected appropriate and lacking in biasness. (a). If the study was a clinical trial or interventional study, was adequate attention paid to developing an appropriate intervention? No. The research was not as detailed as it should be in the case of a clinical trial or an intervention study. It simply provided the necessary research information about the progress of nurses in the university hospital in treating heel ulcers (Adejumo & Ingwu, 2010). (b).
Was there a well-conceived intervention theory that guided the endeavor? The study lacked any intervention theory that would have provided a framework for the research results and explanations as well as incorporate the same into recommendations. (c). Was the intervention adequately pilot-tested? The research study did not have any pilot program to test the use of water-filled gloves in treating heel ulcers. It simply relied on the experience of the nurses in using the method from the beginning. (a). If the study was a clinical trial, evaluation, or intervention study, was there an effort to understand how the intervention was implemented (i. e., a process-type analysis)?
The study employed the use of in-depth interviews which covered not only the research topic but how these nurses went about implementing the procedure to their patients. “ Majority of the nurses used the WFGs on patients after physical examination… mainly to those patients vulnerable to developing heel PU (Adejumo & Ingwu, 2010). ” (b). Were the financial costs and benefits assessed? There were no in-depth financials assessed and the only thing mentioned in the research discussion is about the affordability of this method compared to other forms of treatments of the same heel PU. (c).
If not, should they have been? Detailed information of the financial costs of this form of treatment and the others presently being employed should have been examined and the data presented with the rest of the research findings for comparison purposes. (a) If the study was outcomes research, which segments of the structure– process– outcomes model were examined? The study was highly based on the outcome of the WFG process more than the process itself. This is the reason the research results focused on the percentage of those who agreed and disagreed with the process (Adejumo & Ingwu, 2010). (b) Would it have been desirable (and feasible) to expand the study to include other aspects? Expansion of the study would have led to a reduced discussion on the research problem in trying to balance among other aspects of the problem hence losing insight into the process.
The other aspects can form other research topics (Bryman, 2012). (c) Do the findings suggest possible improvements to structures or processes that would be beneficial to patient outcomes? The research findings simply focused on the research topic and the outcomes of the study participants and nothing else, especially about improvements. If the study was a survey, was the most appropriate method used to collect the data (i. e., in-person interviews, telephone interviews, mail or Internet questionnaires)? In-person interviews are most appropriate to collect survey data as they incorporate not only verbal but non-verbal cues which can aid in making conclusions and recommendations about the research topic (Fowler, 2009). (a) If the study was a secondary analysis, to what extent was the chosen dataset appropriate for addressing the research questions?
The data set was not appropriate as secondary analysis majorly relies on information written in books as well as data from already conducted researches which was not the case. (b). What were the limitations of the dataset, and where these limitations acknowledge and taken into account in interpreting the results? The age group most affected by the heel PU is the older generation but they did not constitute the majority amongst the research subjects but this was not considered during interpretation of the results.
Adejumo, P. & Ingwu, J. (2010). Nurses’ use of water-filled gloves in preventing heel pressure ulcer in University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria. International Wound Journal, 7(6): 472-479.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.
Denise, P. & Beck, C. (2013). Essentials of Nursing Research: Appraising Evidence for Nursing Practice. New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Fowler, F. (2009). Survey Research Methods. New York: SAGE Publications.