Indwelling catheter usage treatment article review
Excerpt via Article Review:
The content entitled Self-Management Intervention pertaining to Long-Term Indwelling Urinary Catheter Users by Wilde, McMahon, McDonald and Chen (2015) is a reputable quantitative examine that is targeted on infection stemming from catheter use. Specifically, the study looks at self-management techniques for home-patients. The article can be well-written, concise, grammatically right, and eliminates the use of slang or prevalent jargon. It is very well organized and organized with headings and subheadings accustomed to divide the text into very easily readable sections. The experts of the examine have school and/or professional nursing backgrounds, which indicates a top degree of expertise in this particular field of catheter research: Wilde and McMahon will be professors in the School of Nursing in the University of Rochester, Chen is a mentor in the University of Cultural Work at the University of North Carolina for Chapel Hill, and McDonald is a mentor at the Center for property Care Plan and Analysis at the Going to Nurse Services of New You are able to. Their mixed backgrounds work for addressing the needs of people engaged in catheter self-management methods. As Grove, Gray and Burns (2015) point out, it can be helpful to understand the qualifications of the authors of a study to be able to assess their very own credibility. In addition , the title is apparent, of a enough length (Coughlan, Cronin and Ryan (2007) state that the title should be among 10 and 15 wordsthis one is almost eight unless one particular counts the hyphenated phrases separately, in which case it is 10), and the subject states the main idea of the paper with no ambiguity. This offers a definite overview of the research and identifies the research trouble, the sample, the method used, the findings that have been made and the recommendations that were given.
Only $13.90 / page
The purpose of the study can be clearly comprehended and the study problem is discovered explicitly. The objective of the study was specifically to determine how effective self-management intervention is at terms of preventing catheter-related urinary system infections, blockages and random dislodgement. Another purpose was also identified, namely the quality of care linked to infection, obstruction and accidental dislodgement in addition to the degree of catheter-related quality of life. Your research report uses the steps of the research procedure in a reasonable manner and these steps obviously flow from a single to the additional. The links between your research compiled in the literary works review and the present research are efficiently clear and suitable. It can be evident from a gap in the literature that there was a need for this research.
The literature review was also realistically organized and offered a balanced critical research of the materials. The materials was typically of new origin and mainly coming from primary options and of an empirical character. The books discussed a history of catheter-usage, the problems connected with long-term indwelling catheters, plus the use of self-management intervention.
A theoretical framework was not plainly identified as guiding the study with no conceptual platform was explicitly described. A framework can arguably be determined by examining the nature of the analysis but the analysts did not particularly identify 1 themselves. The purpose of the study was, however , plainly identified plus the research questions were made noticeable. They were plainly stated and reflected the information presented in the literature review.
The sample was clearly identified. The sample contained 202 adult long-term urinary catheter users. The test was divide between a control group which received usual attention and the check group which usually received the self-management input. The test was chosen by using base data from hospital sufferer records and participants were contacted being participants inside the study. The sample was probable as well as the method was obviously a randomized medical trial. The sample size was suited to early stage research but for more extensive research, a bigger sample will probably be needed later on. Inclusion/exclusion conditions was based on baseline info.
Ethical factors were also not really clearly defined, so it is unknown whether or not the participants had been fully knowledgeable about the size of the research. It is assumed that autonomy and privacy was assured since there is no depiction of person participants in an identifiable way; however , this kind of guarantee is not stated in the text. Also, it is not noted if the individuals were protected from injury; the outcomes of the intervention are defined and this is a only mention of outcomes. It is also not mentioned as to whether