Introduction. Quantitative research is research in which numbers are used to represent reality, and it is directed with the purpose of discovering relationships as well as cause and effect (Fain, 2015). For the purpose of this critique the reader will be analyzing the effectiveness of the Quantitative Article Caregiving for Patients with Heart Failure: Impact on Patients’ Families. To complete this critique, the reader is using methods outlined in the text Reading, Understanding, and Applying Nursing Research.
This study clearly stated its purpose, which was, “to identify factors associated with the impact of caregiving –both positive and negative—among family caregivers of patients with heart failure” (Hwang, Fleischmann, Howie-Esquivel, …show more content…
The researchers clearly state that they employed a cross-sectional descriptive design to complete their research. A sample of 76 patients with heart failure (who were referred to the study by their PCPs) and their primary caregivers were sampled. Inclusion criteria for the patients consisted of the following: all participants had to be 18 years old or older, the patient currently had heart failure, the patient lived in the community, the patient had a family member caring for them at home, and the patient was able to read and write in English. For the caregivers their inclusion criteria were stated as: being 18 years old or older, being primarily involved with that patient’s care at home, not hired by an agency, and able to read and write English (Kwang et al., 2011, pg. 433). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Post informed consent the researchers administered questionnaires to the participants and participants were given the option of completing the questionnaire themselves at home or by interview. This method of administration did not allow for consistency. Participants who completed the question at home could be influenced by one another, skewing the results gained from their questionnaires. While the researcher stated that the participants were told not to complete the questionnaires together there is no way to validate that participants followed through with this rule. There was no mention of missed data, which is a possibility in …show more content…
The results were presented in a very concise and comprehensive manner. The statistical procedure used in this study was the SPSS 15.0 software which enabled the researchers to conduct statistical analysis of the data retrieved from their measures. The researchers went on to describe their results through statistical analysis. They described their response rate and differences in results depending on if the patients became hospitalized during the study period or became ineligible. There were three tables describing the research findings Table 1 (Characteristics of patients with heart failure and their caregivers), Table 2 (Descriptive statistics for measures), and Table 3 (Multiple Regression analyses for impact of caregiving). Of these tables Table 1was clear but not complete. While describing the sample characteristics information on the patients were described in full detail however Table 1 failed to incorporate all of these findings, choosing to express partial information such as only the female sex character risk and only the White race/ethnicity. This information would be valid in the table because as it is now the interpretation is that the patients are either white or not, when in the sample characteristic explanation, they reveal that 11% of the patients were Hispanic, 11% African American, and 9% Asian/Pacific Islander. Table 2 was clear and complete and the table reflected the findings accurately. Table 3 stated all variables related to the impact very
This study clearly stated its purpose, which was, “to identify factors associated with the impact of caregiving –both positive and negative—among family caregivers of patients with heart failure” (Hwang, Fleischmann, Howie-Esquivel, …show more content…
The researchers clearly state that they employed a cross-sectional descriptive design to complete their research. A sample of 76 patients with heart failure (who were referred to the study by their PCPs) and their primary caregivers were sampled. Inclusion criteria for the patients consisted of the following: all participants had to be 18 years old or older, the patient currently had heart failure, the patient lived in the community, the patient had a family member caring for them at home, and the patient was able to read and write in English. For the caregivers their inclusion criteria were stated as: being 18 years old or older, being primarily involved with that patient’s care at home, not hired by an agency, and able to read and write English (Kwang et al., 2011, pg. 433). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Post informed consent the researchers administered questionnaires to the participants and participants were given the option of completing the questionnaire themselves at home or by interview. This method of administration did not allow for consistency. Participants who completed the question at home could be influenced by one another, skewing the results gained from their questionnaires. While the researcher stated that the participants were told not to complete the questionnaires together there is no way to validate that participants followed through with this rule. There was no mention of missed data, which is a possibility in …show more content…
The results were presented in a very concise and comprehensive manner. The statistical procedure used in this study was the SPSS 15.0 software which enabled the researchers to conduct statistical analysis of the data retrieved from their measures. The researchers went on to describe their results through statistical analysis. They described their response rate and differences in results depending on if the patients became hospitalized during the study period or became ineligible. There were three tables describing the research findings Table 1 (Characteristics of patients with heart failure and their caregivers), Table 2 (Descriptive statistics for measures), and Table 3 (Multiple Regression analyses for impact of caregiving). Of these tables Table 1was clear but not complete. While describing the sample characteristics information on the patients were described in full detail however Table 1 failed to incorporate all of these findings, choosing to express partial information such as only the female sex character risk and only the White race/ethnicity. This information would be valid in the table because as it is now the interpretation is that the patients are either white or not, when in the sample characteristic explanation, they reveal that 11% of the patients were Hispanic, 11% African American, and 9% Asian/Pacific Islander. Table 2 was clear and complete and the table reflected the findings accurately. Table 3 stated all variables related to the impact very