Analysis of Articles about Nursing Research - Assignment Example

Study 1:Gance-Cleveland, B. (2004). Qualitative evaluation of a school-based support group for adolescents with an addicted parent. Nursing Research, 6, 379-386 1. Describe the process used to obtain the sample. Were inclusion or exclusion criteria used? If so, what were they? Gance-Cleveland selected two high schools that were located in a Midwestern suburban locality. This site was chosen since it possessed many years of experience with school-based support groups (SBSG) for adolescents who had addicted parents. The sample was assumed to have a connection with the population. Inclusion criteria were used when identifying the amount of time participants had spent in groups (researcher wanted a specific amount of time), certain age, and specific ethnic background. Those who satisfied above criteria were included; others were excluded. The inclusion criteria with cofacilitators focused on the diversity in their age and on their experience with SBSGs. Also on those who were enthusiastic about group and those who had reservations. Data saturation was reached when no new information was obtained. 2. What type of sampling design is this? Is the sampling design a probability or non-probability technique? This is a non-probability sampling design. This was a convenience sample in that it was readily available. There was little control/ limit over participants aside from assuring that they represented/ included certain criteria. One could also define it as a purposive study, in that it was intentionally selected because it had characteristics related to study. 3. What was the sample size? Is this size adequate for the type of study (qualitative or quantitative)? What was the setting for the study? This was a qualitative study, which, generally, can have a smaller sample than a quantitative study. It, generally, tries to gather a sufficient number in order to achieve richness and depth. Its sample size here was 21 participants (7 males and 14 females). Sufficient for this type of study. The setting was two different high schools in a Midwest suburban area that featured students from middle and lower socio-economic backgrounds. 4. How many data collection instruments were used? How and when were data collected? Data collection instruments constituted: (1) Interviews that were conducted with program administrators, school administrators, group cofacilitators, and participants (2) Participant observations that were conducted weekly at two high schools in the school district over one semester. (3) A focus group evaluation that was conducted at the conclusion of a support group held at one of the two high schools. (4) Written evaluations that were obtained at the final group session at both sites. The process: Initial interviews represented pertinent forms and documents being surveyed (for instance, the program manual, a set of minutes from a school counselor’s meeting, and group evaluations from one counselor.) Participants were observed for 4 hours. Observations included 5 weeks of screening students regarding their interest in group participation and preparation for group, and then 15 weeks of 45-minute support group sessions followed by debriefing and follow-up activities. The researcher, acting as cofaciliator for both groups, was introduced as a nurse who was there to learn more about the groups. Collection data about cofacilaitators was collected in the following manner: The program administrator and a school vice principal were interviewed at the beginning of the project, whilst the substance abuse consultant was interviewed not only at midsemester and at the conclusion of the study, but also following each observation in order to clarify the observations. Three school counselors who also acted as cofacilaitors and three student participants were interviewed at the beginning, at the middle point, and at the conclusion of the study. The first interview examined the critical attributes and processes of the groups, the second interview focused on benefits and weaknesses of the groups, whilst the final interview clarified and validated the findings. A focus group evaluation was conducted at the conclusion of the support group at one high school, and all the members of the group were invited to participate. Written evaluations were obtained at the final group session at both sites. Finally, final interviews with a counselor and a participant were conducted in order to confirm the findings. 5. Describe the methods used to safeguard the ethical rights of the subjects. What do you think of the sampling methods for this study? What problems did you find in the sampling methods? In order to safeguard the ethical rights of the participants, approval was solicited from IRB, consent from administrators and cofacilitators as well as from students (permission form parents was waived since unnecessary) was obtained at the beginning of each interview, and researchers refrained from examining school documents on individual student performance. Participants’ anonymity was protected by using code numbers to identify data. The sampling frame needs to be representative of general population. This was a Midwestern suburban school district and even though the sampling included students from middle and lower class socio-economic backgrounds – none were from urban backgrounds (a significant component since adolescents of addicted parents, living in urban environments would have a totally different range of experiences than those living in suburban areas). More so, there was a great disparity between the males and females of both students and participants in focus group (who included cofacilitators and students) (7 male students versus 14 female students, and the focus group included 2 male participants versus 11 female participants). Whereas, former studies had underrepresented the female population, this study had overrepresented the female population, resulting in a biased sample. A similar imbalance existed between Latinos and Whites (6 Latino participants versus 19 White participants; in the focus groups: 30 versus 70) although that might not matter too much since, in the general population, Latinos are underrepresented too). A greater problem is the fact that Latinos were the only ethnic groups observed (whereas the targeted population would naturally represent greater ethnic diversity). Study 2: Ridge, R.A., & Goodson, A.S. (2000) The relationship between multidisciplinary discharge outcomes and functional status after total hip replacement. Orthopedic Nursing, 19, 71-82 2. Describe the process used to obtain the sample. Were inclusion or exclusion criteria used? If so, what were they? Patients, who had decided to undergo total hip replacement, were asked whether they wished to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria were almost exclusively used here. Patients had to agree to participate, had to be of a certain age, had to conform to the domain of physical and psychosocial functioning as measured by the Sickness Impact Profile and the hip outcome tool which was administered to them both in the month prior to surgery and at 3 months following surgery. Finally, patients’ pain and mobility level were taken into consideration when discharged. Inclusion criteria consisted of the following: They had to be between 40 and 78, and had to be of the patient population i.e. total hip arthroplasty patients. 3. What type of sampling design is this? Is the sampling design a probability or non-probability technique? It is a non-probabilistic sample in that a certain population was approached. It is a purposive study – intentionally selected because it had characteristics related to study. 4. What was the sample size? Is this size adequate for the type of study (qualitative or quantitative)? What was the setting for the study? The sample size was small for a quantitative study: 21 participants. The setting of the study was a combination of hospital (an academic health center) and home care: patients were evaluated when discharged on their level of pain and mobility, and the two instruments were administered to patients by the clinical nurse coordinator during routine assessment in the hospital and follow-up ambulatory care visits. 5. How many data collection instruments were used? How and when were data collected? Observation, interview, and design measures were used. Patients were assessed when discharged. There was direct interviewing approximately 2 weeks prior to hospitalization. Two types of instruments were used –the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) and the hip outcome tool. These were administered in the month prior to surgery (given to patients by nurse coordinator during preadmission visit and returned when admitted for surgery) and also 3 months after hospital discharge returned by patients by mail. 6. Describe the methods used to safeguard the ethical rights of the subjects. What do you think of the sampling methods for this study? what problems did you find in the sampling methods? The only method stated as pertaining to ethical rights of patients is that patients were asked if they wished to participate. The sampling method seems to be representative of the intended population; the only problem is that it seems to be too small, therefore insufficiently representing a greater diversity of individuals or categories who might indicate different outcomes to the pain. Females, for instance, might indicate a greater construct of functional status to total hip replacement than males; age, too, is inadequately featured. The sample is too small to be reliable. (Indeed all former studies involved larger samples, and one even though only slightly larger than this one, made up for its weakness by being a longitudinal study.) Source Gance-Cleveland, B. (2004). Qualitative evaluation of a school-based support group for adolescents with an addicted parent. Nursing Research, 6, 379-386 Ridge, R.A., & Goodson, A.S. (2000) The relationship between multidisciplinary discharge outcomes and functional status after total hip replacement. Orthopedic Nursing, 19, 71-82 Read More