Care Related Pain in Rehabilitation after Orthopedic Trauma - Essay Example

Critique of a Qualitative Study Critique of “Care Related Pain in Rehabilitation after Orthopedic Trauma: An Exploratory Study withQualitative Data” In their study, Care related pain in rehabilitation after orthopedic trauma: An exploratory study with qualitative data, Favre et al. seek to understand the concept of care related pain from the perspective of patients and nurses. The authors start the study by giving worthy statistics about care related pain and the perception of nurses and patients towards it. They asserts that pain in care is a common issue, not only in orthopedics but patients do not understand the concept. The critique will analyze the contents of the paper against the standards of a nursing research. The critique focuses on the problem statement, research questions, literature review and the theoretical framework of the study. Purpose and Research Questions The main objective of the study is to reveal the perceptions of patients and practitioners towards care-related pain. The authors have not included any research questions in the study. It is also relatively difficult for readers to extract research questions from the problem statement. However, two questions can be extracted from the literature; what are the patients perception towards CRP? And what are the perception of nurses towards car related pain? The research questions show the aspects that the study seeks to unravel. The research questions relate to the problem statement. The study is also keen on using a qualitative approach to answering the questions. The design is ideal since the questions require theoretical descriptions. The sources of data are also limited and includes patients and practitioners only. The main aim of narrowing sources of data is to answer the research questions precisely. Literature Review The literature review of the study provides a background on care related pain. The review revolves around the issue that there is a misunderstanding of care related pain among patients and nurses. The literature review uses a lot of resources that may be irrelevant in coverage of the research problem. From the objectives, the study is only supposed to use resources that support the problem statement. Resources focus on care related pain and avoid relating it to traumatic conditions. In this regard, not all resources sufficiently cover the crucial elements of the study. The authors admit that care related problem is not a problem affecting orthopedic patients only. They cite multiple references to support the fact that laparotomy patients also have the same problem. Lack of information on CRP is a leading problem that affects patient recovery and affects other bodily functions such as sleep and activity (Favre, 2014). The sources in the literature review outline the importance of understanding care related pain and its effect on patient health. The authors have not indicated any weaknesses of the sources of data. The sources include books and medical journals. Sources may have several problems with the validity of the information they present and hence their credibility to be used for research purposes. The sources that study the perceptions of patients and caregivers regarding CRP using a qualitative approach are limited. In fact, the study found only one study addressing the problem using a qualitative approach. Methods Research framework The research is built on a theoretical framework. The study builds on the collection of concepts that patients and caregivers have views towards CRP and combining them to form a conclusion. The study builds on the fact that care related pain is a problem among patients and affects recovery period. The perceptions about CRP from the perspectives of both patients and nurses remain to be established. The study uses questionnaires and interviews as the main data collection methods. Questionnaires were distributed to the patients and caregivers. Patients were supposed to answer about their perception towards CRP and the effects on their health. However, the modality of using questionnaires in the study is questionable. First, the study does not provide an explanation of how the questionnaires were distributed or moderated. Selection of participants or respondents of the questionnaires is not outlined. This could affect the objectivity of the information. The study does not also provide the methods that were used to gauge the accuracy of data provided by patients and practitioners. The situation implies that the study could have made conclusions based on inaccurate data (Wood & Kerr, 2010). Moreover, the questionnaires are not ideal to collect data from patients in severe pain. Some questions regarding the intensity of pain could not be answered by patients without external help. For example, patients could not accurately tell the intensity of pain on a scale of EVA 0–100 mm. The study thus ought to explain checks that were put in place to ensure the accuracy and consistency of data collected from patients who have experienced or experiencing different degrees of pain. Interviews were conducted to gather data on a more personalized perspective. Interviewees engaged patients and caregivers to answer questions relating to CRP. However, the authors do not explain when and how the interviews were conducted. The “when” aspect determines the timing of the interview. It is important for the interview to capture information from patients experiencing care related pain or have experienced it before. Moreover, caregivers may be busy to secure time for an interview. Thus, the study could have given precise information on the timing. The study does not outline how the interview was conducted, who conducted the interview and how many interviewers were involved. These elements define the success of an interview. The study does not also define the guidelines for the interviews so as to prevent the effect of extraneous factors such as the inability of patients to differentiate between normal pain and care related pain. Results As noted, the study used a theoretical framework. The framework entailed categorizing data in sections and combining it to make viable conclusions (Dey, 2003). Data from interviews and questionnaires was compiled in this section. Data is presented in descriptive format. Descriptive statistical analysis was done using STATA and output presented in the form of tables and charts. This section is highly professional and uses data from the two sources to make inferences in the conclusion section. Discussions and Conclusion The discussions are centered on the results of the study; however, the authors have included a number of outside sources in the section. It is expected that the discussion section should use the results to formulate theories, concepts and inferences about the research problem. Thus, we expect the study to use fewer external sources in this section. The discussion is deficient of an explanation on how the understanding of the CRP from the perspectives of patients and nurses could impact nursing practice, rather it focuses on the benefits of understanding care related pain for both nurses and patients. Every study on nursing should aim at adding value to the practice. The study aimed at finding more information on CRP. The conclusion is also supposed to offer a summary and the recommendation for further studies. The study only offers a summary of the study and does not identify any areas that may require more studies. This is a major shortcoming of a research conclusion. References Dey, I. (2003). Qualitative data analysis a user-friendly guide for social scientists. London: Routledge. Favre, C., Dériaz, O., Hanon, R., & Luthi, F. (2014). Care related pain in rehabilitation after orthopedic trauma: An exploratory study with qualitative data. Annals Of Physical And Rehabilitation Medicine, doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2014.08.005 Wood, M. J., Kerr, J. C., & Brink, P. J. (2010). Basic steps in planning nursing research: From question to proposal. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Read More