Quantitative Studies Article Critique and PICOT
Quantitative Studies Article Critique and PICOT
Quantitative Studies Article Critique
Article critique is an elemental skill that empowers nurse practitioners with the necessary information for evidence-based clinical practice that subsequently improves the quality of patient care. In this piece of literature, an article related to the PICOT question (In smoking young adults with COPD, does patient education to encourage smoking cessation compared to lack of patient education, reduce hospitalizations due to acute COPD exacerbations and improve health-related quality of life over 1 year?) shall be critically evaluated with emphasis on key areas such as the purpose of study, methodology, limitations, and recommendations. Quantitative Studies Article Critique and PICOT
After an in-depth review of Structured training to patients of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease reduces frequency of hospital readmission, a study by Rahman et al. (2018 Quantitative Studies Article Critique and PICOT), it is vivid that the report was well written and logically structured with minimal grammatical errors. Rahman et al. (2018 Quantitative Studies Article Critique and PICOT) conducted this study to observe the impact of structured training COPD patients in reducing the frequency of hospital readmission, to see changes in awareness of the patients regarding COPD, drug compliance, and finally to evaluate the alterations in the practice of the patients about COPD.
This prospective comparative study was undertaken in the inpatient department of Medicine and Pulmonology Unit, Sir Salimullah Medical College and Mitford Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh, from January 2010 to June 2011. After ethical review, informed consent, and exclusion of other comorbidities, a sample of 144 participants were selected from inpatients admitted due to acute exacerbation of COPD. 72 of the participants were randomly allocated as cases (group A) and received structured training while the remaining 72 formed the controls (group B) and did not receive the structured training. Quantitative Studies Article Critique and PICOT
The data was collected using a structured questionnaire. Pertinent patient information including patients’ demographic, clinical characteristics, baseline knowledge, attitude, and practice about COPD was recorded as baseline variables. Outcome variables documented include a change in knowledge and practice about COPD as well as their impact in reducing hospital reemission rates. After a statistical analysis using SPSS and comparison chi-squared test, Fischer’s exact test, and student t-test at a level of significance at 0.05, Rahman et al. (2018) found the following findings; In the intervention group, 30%, 58. 3% and 11.1% needed no hospital admission, one admission, and 2/more admissions respectively.
Meanwhile, in the control group, 2 or more admissions were required during the same period. Similarly, out of 55 current smokers (30 cases and 25 cases), 96.7% of the cases quit smoking and 3.3% reduced the frequency of smoking following structured education while none gave up smoking in the control group. Quantitative Studies Article Critique and PICOT
The strengths of the Rahman et al. (2018) research include being the first study in Bangladesh to demonstrate the impact of structural training on smoking, COPD exacerbation, and readmissions. Similarly, both the patients and the controls in this study had similar baseline characteristics. Consequently, the difference in the outcome between the control and the cases can solely be attributed to the intervention. This study further effectively demonstrates the effectiveness of structural training based on the concept of pulmonary rehabilitation.
However, this study is limited in that it could not identify precisely the component of the structural training that had the effect to be directly attributed to the outcome since it correlates the outcomes to the entire structural training. Finally, this study recommends healthcare providers implement the practice of structural training and empower their patients to be responsible for their care. Quantitative Studies Article Critique and PICOT
Quantitative Studies Article Critique and PICOT References
Rahman, M. M., Azhar, M. A., Saha, A. K., & Nahar, K. (2018). Structured training to the patients of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease reduces frequency of hospital readmission. Delta Medical College Journal, 6(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.3329/dmcj.v6i1.35966
Quantitative Studies Article Critique and PICOT Instructions
With new information continually emerging, professional nurses must be equipped to critique scholarly literature and discern its value for practice. Select one current, quantitative scholarly nursing article related to your PICOT question and determine its strengths, limitations, and potential application. Quantitative Studies Article Critique and PICOT
use your own words to summarize your appraisal of the article. Include the following:Description of the purpose
Explanation of research design
Discussion of sample
Description of data collection methods
Summary of findings
Strengths of the study (minimum of 1)
Limitations of the study (minimum of 1)
Recommendations regarding potential application for future practice that are insightful and appropriate.
Attach the article to your post, in addition to including the full reference for the article in your post. (APA citation) Quantitative Studies Article Critique and PICOTOnly quantitative studies are accepted: descriptive, correlational, quasi-experimental, experimental (RCT)
The PICOT Question is :
PICOT Question written in full: In smoking young adults with COPD, does patient education to encourage smoking cessation compared to lack of patient education, reduce hospitalizations due to acute COPD exacerbations and improve health related quality of life over 1 year?
Research Critiques and PICOT Question Guidelines –
Qualitative and Quantitative Studies
Background of Studies
How Do These Four Articles Support the Nursing Practice Problem You Chose?
Method of Studies:
Results of Studies:
Proposed Evidence-Based Practice Change
|Comments / Note