Research Article Critique Essay Student`s

ResearchArticle Critique Essay

Student`s

Instructor`s

CourseTittle:

Submission

ResearchArticle Critique Essay

Thecritical review of a research article is significant during thestudying process and when considering a new research idea. Inaccuratefindings may result in misguided applications which may spawn furtherfallacies the new knowledge that one constructs. As such, it isimportant to evaluate critically existing scholarly evidence toprevent furthering of misinformation. This paper will present anextensive critical analysis of a research article titled “RandomizedControlled Trial of a Psychoeducation Program for the Self-Managementof Chronic Cardiac Pain.” This evaluation will focus on threefundamental tenets namely substantiative value, methodological rigor,and interpretative analysis.

SubstantiveValue

Thegoal of this research was to appraise the impact of a low-costsix-week angina psychoeducation program on the self-management ofanginal pain, self-efficacy, and health-related quality of life(McGillion et al. 2008). This program was entitled The Chronic AnginaSelf-Management Program (CASMP). The research findings indicatedthat the CASMP was effective in enhancing the self-management ofanginal symptoms, general health, physical functioning, andself-efficacy. This study makes a notable contribution to nursingpractice given the fact that angina affects a large percentage ofpeople across the world. First, this study reveals that engaging inpsychoeducational interventions can vastly relieve angina painsymptoms and improve physical activity (McGillion et al. 2008). Thisfinding helps to extend the current range of options in themanagement of angina.

Apartfrom improving the efficiency of angina management, this studyprovides a way for angina patients to manage themselves effectivelyat low costs. They can manage themselves at home while stillattaining similar outcomes as those achievable in a hospital setting.Most importantly, this study helps to set precedence for moreresearch into this area. Future research in this field will mostlikely come up with more disease specific psychoeducational programs(McGillion et al. 2008). These programs will target a broader rangeof illness hence improve patient outcomes. Moreover, further studieswill also improve the quality of life of angina patients usingpsychoeducational programs.

MethodologicRigor

Thestudy uses various techniques to make the methods more vigorous andappropriate. First, the research uses a randomized controlled trialdesign that helps to reduced bias in the selection and allocation ofthe participants (McGillion et al. 2008). The study also upholdsethical standards by obtaining informed consents from theinstitutions taking part in the study. This process serves to protectthe privacy and confidentiality of the subjects involved in thesurvey. The study procedure was made more rigorous through anassiduous follow-up program that helped to reduce the attrition rate.The monitoring process was conducted through telephone calls and afollow-up letter to create a personal touch that would encourage theparticipants to report their findings (McGillion et al. 2008).

Besides,the study employed a principal investigator (PI) that was accreditedas a “Master Trainer” in the Chronic Disease Self-ManagementProgram (CDSMP) from the Stanford Patient Education Research Center(McGillion et al. 2008). A PI of this caliber was employed to ensurethat the CASMP was in alignment with the format of CDSMP. Thedelivery of the CASMP across sessions was made consistent using amanual that was specified in the intervention protocol. The programwas then taught by a Registered Nurse in a classroom setting that wascomfortable for better delivery (McGillion et al. 2008).

InterpretativeAnalysis

Thedata analysis in this study was based on the intention-to-treatprinciples. The Chi-squared analysis and the Student t-test were usedto examine pretest scores and the equivalence of groups regardingbaseline demographic features (McGillion et al. 2008). The Studentt-test was used for continuous level data while the Chi-square wasused for discrete level data. Moreover, the effect of CASMP onself-efficacy, quality of life, and resourcefulness to managesymptoms was analyzed using change score analyses (McGillion et al.2008). The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized in the study toevaluate significant differences in change scores between control andtreatment groups. Also, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)was conducted before ANOVA to protect against Type 1 error. MANOVAwas performed on SAQ- and SF-36-related data due to the varioussubscales that were involved in the research (McGillion et al. 2008).

Achange score approach was preferred over the analysis of covariance(ANCOVA) so that the reader could access the observed differences inchange scores between the control and treatment groups (McGillion etal. 2008). This way, the significance of any intervention effectwould be easily decipherable. However, the data was reanalyzed usingANCOVA with the findings supporting the change score approach thatwas used initially (McGillion et al. 2008). All data from the studywas cleaned and evaluated for outliers and departure from the normwith assumptions from all parametric analyses being fulfilled.

Conclusion

Criticalanalysis of research is crucial in understanding the significance ofprevious studies. This analysis involves evaluating the applicationof the research findings in daily practice. Also, it involvesassessing the integrity of the research through the evaluation of themethodology and analysis methods used in the research. A thoroughcritical analysis of research evidence helps one to gain and applyproper knowledge in day-to-day activities. The analysis of thisarticle has provided useful information concerning its substantivevalue, methodology, and interpretative analysis.

References

McGillion, M., Watson, J., Stevens, B., LeFort, S., Coyte, P., &amp Graham, A. (2008). Randomized Controlled Trial of a Psychoeducation Program for the Self-Management of Chronic Cardiac Pain. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 36(2), 126-140.