Critiqueof Systematic Research Review (SRR)
Critiqueof Systematic Research Review (SRR)
Bicyclesare good means of transport both in the middle and the low levelincome countries. In high income nations, they are used asrecreational tools. In addition to that, a bicycle is used as ahealthy practice, which does not require a lot of income orinconveniences. As one rides the bicycle, since it is manual, thecardiovascular health is enhanced. Apart from that, bicycles are alsoused in the replacement of means of transport, which lead to globalwarming, and therefore, maintaining the environmental conditionsthat are suitable for human existence. However, if cycling is notpracticed well, bicycle riding can be of more harm than good to humanbeings. As such, there are some items that should be considered toensure that bicycles are helpful to human health and that the deathrate as a result of that is reduced.
Relevanceof the Nursing Research Problem Addressed in Systematic ResearchReviews
Cyclinginjuries result in an increased number of hospitalization and deathsrates. Since nurses are the ones encountering the patients from theaccident scenes and all through the time while in the hospital, ittherefore makes it important to research the exact causes of theinjuries, the remedies available to counter the causes, as well asthe effectiveness or the ineffectiveness of the already existingremedies put in place [ CITATION San15 l 1033 ].Thus,this makes it an important item to be researched by the healthpractitioners. Bicycle helmets are among the available remedies,which are intended to reduce injuries in the cycling industry and areimportant in the reduction of the deaths associated with ridingaccidents. This paper will be concerned with the effectiveness of thebicycle helmets in the reduction of the death rates and also theinjuries from cycling accidents. Besides, the paper will critiquethe levels of evidence of the research used in the SRR, specificallythe designs of the studies included.
Thesystematic research review involved various studies, whichare twentytwo in number, in the collection of data to give a comprehensiveconclusion. The studies used included three trials that wereconducted individually, which were random but controlled, sixclusters that were selected at random and controlled, 12 which werecontrolled before and after studies, and finally one trial that wasconducted with concurrent controls[ CITATION Che11 l 1033 ].Models of random effects were also used to bring togetherdata for meta-analysis.
Ingeneral, the program was effective in the community based issues andto those providing helmets free of charge. But then those providingsubsidized helmets and the ones set in schools were not taken intoconsideration. Among the programs conducted, none of them examinedthe influence of the program on the rates of injury. The author ofthe review gave a caution that the use of helmets will reduce thenumber of cyclists on the road, and therefore, affecting the healthof the population negatively, without giving any evidence of data onthe same. There can be always an option for the same. It is not onlythe cycling that brings about good health.Therefore, before anyargument or giving a caution, there should always be a substantiveevidence to support the same.
Critiqueofthe Clarity with Which the Studies are Presented and Critiqued
Inthe study, the results are not well presented, that is, there are noexact figures on the number of injuries that happen when the helmetsare used and when they are not used. There is just an overalldiscussion of how the use of helmets affects the severity of theinjuries. In any systematic review, it should be supported by actualfigures. When one says that the use of helmets reduces cyclists’accidents due to reflections and so forth, it can be relative fromone person to the other. As much as the review is concerned so muchon the efficacy of the helmets, then the helmets are not efficientlyused. Even where there are legislations regarding their use, thecitizens still do not take it seriously. As much as there is its use,it should be legalized that the use of helmets is mandatory.
Descriptionofthe Overall Findings of the Studies as Summarized in the SRR
Inthe systematic research review, it is found out that the use ofhelmets reduces the severity of the injuries, especially on the upperside of the head. When there is an accident, the helmet protects theskull, and therefore, the injuries that are incurred are minimal.However, the helmet does not cover the bottom part, and therefore,it is still exposed to the injuries.In a bid to ensure theeffectiveness of the helmet, there should be the coordination of themanufacturers and the quality standards personnel. After the helmetshave been manufactured, they should meet the quality standards toensure that they are fit for use by cyclists.
Anotherissue of concern from the SRR is the legislation of the use. Despitethe fact that the people are educated on the use of the helmet andits advantages, they still find it an issue to use whenever they arecycling. The problem is common with the middle and low incomecountries where they cannot afford it. However, this can be curbed byhaving the prices of the helmets subsidized. In essence, governmentsshould distribute helmets free. The use of the helmets should be mademandatory by the government such that any cyclist going on the roadshould have one. By doing so, the risks that would arise as a resultof head injuries are reduced to great extents[ CITATION Rad16 l 1033 ].Legislation is only possible in the high income countries.
Ina bid to reduce the accidents due to bicycles, the cycling pathsshould be improved to enhance cyclists’ movement (DevelopingStatewide Pedestrian Crash Rates). The speed limit by the car driversshould also be limited. By legislating this, the rules will be setclear to all road users, and therefore, they can move freely, thusreducing the cases of accidents. For the school going children, theyshould be educated on the rules, as well as the use of helmets. Sincethe children are young, whatever is instilled in them can easilystick and therefore easily practiced and becomes a culture to them.When the next generation comes, they can emulate what already exists,and therefore, with time, the number of deaths encountered as aresult of accidents from bicycles is reduced. Helmet legislationcomes along with reduced trauma because what the government setstends to be taken seriously and therefore people fear the penaltiesthat come along with it.
Critiqueof the Conclusions of the SRR, with Implications for My CurrentPractice and Future Research
Thesystematic research review concludes that the use of legislationmethods will solve the problem of cyclist not using the helmets.However, if one does not want to use the helmet, then they will onlyuse it where they are seen by the government representatives. Bydoing so, accidents can occur when cyclists have no helmets, andtherefore, still leading to deaths. Principally, instead of using thelegislation method, the people should be educated on the reasons asto why they should use helmets[ CITATION Nau14 l 1033 ].Whenthey use them willingly after understanding the need, they will do soeven when they are not seen by anyone. Therefore, my perspective isthat people should be educated instead of being forced to do things.
Insummation, in middle level income countries, the rate of deaths dueto cycling accidents is rampant despite the fact that studies havebeen conducted to curb the issue. Therefore, systematic researchalone is not enough unless the cost effective measures areconsidered. These cost effective measures would include the educationof the young school going children on the use of helmets, thedistribution of the helmets by the government to the cyclists,distribution of standardized helmets, improvement of cyclists’paths, as well as the provision of subsidized ones. Principally,intense research should be carried out to ensure that there is shiftof focus from reduction of injuries due to physical activities tosafety behavior change. When human beings change their behaviors,there will be a notable reduction in injuries resulting from physicalactivities. By doing so, two issues will be solved using one method,which is effective.
Cheryl Holly, E. R. (2011). Comprehensive Systematic Review for Advanced Nursing Practice. Springer Publishing Company.
Developing Statewide Pedestrian Crash Rates. Assessment of Sidewalk/Bicycle-Lane Gaps with Safety and Developing Statewide Pedestrian Crash Rates., 60-62.
Nauta, J. V. (2014). A systematic review on the effectiveness of school and community-based injury prevention programmes on risk behaviour and injury risk in 8–12 year old children. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 165-172.
Radwan, E. A.-S. (2016). Assessment of Sidewalk/Bicycle-Lane Gaps with Safety and
Sandt, L. M. (2015). Community-Based Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program: Developmental Framework and Process Evaluation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,, 51-60.