Analysis of Works Biran, Hill C, Mahamud, Savolainen-Kopra, Sethi - Article Example

UNIT 3 ANALYSIS OF FIVE ARTICLES Hill (2005 Hill (2005) did not make much reference to existing literature and thus their research lacked some degree of empirical authenticity. (2)None of the sources used by the writer was conducted more than a year before his work. (4)Maximum effort was done to state the purpose clearly as the use of soap and water to eradicate disease viruses (5)All literature reviewed were directly related to purpose so as to make the study co-relational. (9)The study did not have a clearly stated hypothesis though there were attempts to make the researcher’s predictions known (13)Because hypotheses were not clearly stated, they could not be described as testable. (15) There was no conclusive statement of the dependant and independent variables (16)The study was explicit on how the research was conducted and that was by scientific experimentation (17)The sampling was highly representative of the population (18)Random sampling technique was used in the sampling process (20)There was no clear-cut relation of results to the literature (21)Research confirmed that the assumptions were achieved after the results (27)Researcher made effort to reflect most of the references in the actual research (28)There were some key sources that were not referenced (29)Indeed the research is understandable though not well organized (33)What would be done to improve the research is to organize it well Savolainen-Kopra et al (2012) (1)There was a step-by-step attempt to relate each major point to previous literature. To this end, the researchers seemed to have developed specific themes for the various objectives such that the selection of the literature was made to reflect the themes as they appeared in previous works. (2)The review is very current with all sources being not more than 2 years before the main research. (3)Hand hygiene was the problem and it was clearly stated (5)The basis for selecting each literature was to tie it to a research objective (9)The researchers gave no clearly spelt hypothesis (13)Hypotheses could not be tested because they were not clearly stated (14) Guided hand hygiene together with transmission-limiting behavior and infection episodes were the respective variables considered (15)The study was conducted as a comparative research (16)All members of the population had equal chance of being represented in the sample (19)Variables that identify subjects from other researchers were not different from variables in selecting current subjects (20)There is a direct link between results and previous literature (22)Discussion was done based sorely on the results (24)The reference list was very current (26)Almost all sources used in the in-text were reflected in the reference list (29)Indeed the report was clearly written and very understandable (32)The primary implication of the research is that hand washing with soap needs to be adapted as a behavior if we want to achieve hand hygiene. Sethi et al (2012). (1)The research was actually conducted as a comparative study to existing researches and so was well related to existing literature (2)There are no clearly known references that were left out. This means that the review was very current and based on credibly updated sources (3)The statement of the problem emphasizes on the attitude of health workers that puts them at risks to contracting diseases and this is clearly stated (6)There is a clearly stated objective of the need to increase awareness among health workers on how they can avoid the risk of attracting diseases related to the use of their hands. (9)The researchers assume that hand hygiene campaign can reduce diseases among health workers but this is not clearly stated as a sub-topic for hypothesis (13)There could be a long term testing of the hypothesis to find the rate of hand related infections among workers. (15)Researchers could not undertake a clearly defined description of the variables that were used for the study (16)The study was conducted as an action research that aimed at improving an identified problem (17)There was an even proportion of presentation of population in the sample size. This was done through random sampling (19)There was no clear-cut similarity between the sample used in the present research and that which was used in other literature (20)There were themes built to ensure that the very topics that formed the sections of the literature review were used under the results (23)Researchers refused to provide a clearly stated closure of the results to the hypothesis (24)The study could be credited for using very current study materials which were no more than five years old (26)Almost all sources that were used in-text were referenced (29)Researchers presented the research in a clearly organized manner (33)One thing that could be done to improve the present study is to work more on the hypothesis and use that to compare the results. Biran et al (2012). (1)There was an analytical comparison of previous reviews of literature to the current research (2)There are no clear left-outs in the literature review as they are all very current. (3)The research problem was stated in a clearly defined manner that was free from all ambiguity (5)There was a direct correlation between the purpose of the study and literature reviewed (9)It was hypothesized that hygiene practices among refugees would improve their health and this was clearly stated (13)The research hypothesis are testable but this will be done over a very long period of time (14)The researchers made no distinction between dependent and independent variables though there were efforts to spell the variables for the study (16)The research was conducted based on comparative analysis between the sample that received the intervention and those who did not (17)The research was short of demographic details of sample size members and so it was difficult to determine if there was a clear representation of the population (19)In the studies that the researchers reviewed, the setting of subjects were quite different from the present research (20)Researchers related the results explicitly with the literature reviewed (22)Each theme of the results had its own discussion and so there was consistency (24)Majority of the references were not more than 3 years old and so were relatively current (28)All in-text references were duly represented in the list of references (29)The study was indeed well organized and this made the whole report understandable (32)The primary implications of the research is that hygienic behavior hold the key to improved health Mahamud et al (2009). (1)The researchers attempted to undertake a relatively new study and so much comparison was done with existing literature (2)The few literature that were used in this research were also not very recent because some of them were as old as 11 years (3)There was a clearly stated problem of epidemic cholera and how hand washing with soap could help address the identified problem (8)Cholera is a life threatening disease and so any attempt to eradicate it is certainly an appropriate rationale to undertake. (9)The researcher ensured a clearly outlined hypothesis that was based on the assumption that hand washing with soap could reduce incidences of cholera (12)The hypothesis are grounded in theory of the fact that active agents in soap kill disease causing bacteria (15)The definition of the independent and dependent variables is not explicit and thus not complete (16)The study was conducted as an action research that sought to better the health of respondents (17)Random sampling was used and so gave a fair representation of all the population (19)Because researchers attempted to undertake a new research, the subjects used in this case were different from those used in the literature (20)There was a step-by-step comparison of results to the literature that was reviewed (23)Because the testability of the hypothesis is a long term one, the researchers could not give a closure on it based on the discussions (24)The references were not very current because most of them were old (25)There was consistency in the referencing pattern (29)The report is indeed clearly written and understandable in relation to the research problem (33)The research would best if there were more current literature used. References Biran et al (2012). Hygiene and sanitation practices amongst residents of three long-term refugee camps in Thailand, Ethiopia and Kenya. Trop Med Int Health. 2012 Jul 29. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2012.03045.x. Hill C (2005). Study: Soap And Water Work Best In Ridding Hands Of Disease Viruses. University Of North Carolina School Of Medicine: North Carolina Mahamud et al (2012). Epidemic cholera in Kakuma Refugee Camp, Kenya, 2009: the importance of sanitation and soap. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2012 Mar 12;6(3):234-41. Savolainen-Kopra et al (2012). Hand washing with soap and water together with behavioural recommendations prevents infections in common work environment: an open cluster-randomized trial. US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health: Washington D.C Sethi et al (2012). Infection Control Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices among Healthcare Workers at Mulago Hospital, Kampala, Uganda. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012 Sep;33(9):917-23. Read More