Critique of a Research Article on Nursing
This critique utilizes the quantitative article by Pourghaznein, Azimi, and Jafarabadi (2014) titled “the effect of injection duration and injection site on pain and bruising of subcutaneous injection of heparin.” The authors used a strong abstract since it is brief and comprehensive. Through reading the abstract, the readers get a grasp of the entire research. Although the title of this article is a long one, it intensely conveys the grounds of the study. The introduction avows that drug injection is amid the major sections of drug administration, in addition to nursing medical interventions. One vital responsibility of nurses is the safe administration of drugs where professional injection methods can prevent needless pain and unwarranted complications. In the introduction section, the article attracts the interest of the readers because nurses normally inject heparin subcutaneously, which usually leads to several complications encompassing bruises, sclerosis, or pain in the injected area (Yi et al., 2016). Therefore, readers would desire to read the article in search of the explanations and solution to such problems. The article is significant to the nursing practice as, with respect to high-risk patients, subcutaneous heparin injection acts as amid the crucial techniques for thromboembolic therapy.
Pourghaznein et al. (2014) failed to include a clear statement of the problem in their article. Instead, they chose to incorporate the statement of the problem into the introduction. In its entirety, the introduction discloses the arguments of certainty through which the authors base their research problem. On this note, the introduction conveys the statement of the problem as dissimilar methods of injection being the possible reasons behind pain, bruises, and sclerosis thus nurses ought to employ a practice through which they could avoid unnecessary complications linked to heparin injection. This way, the authors employed a poor means of portraying the statement of the problem as it ought to be lucid and directly identifiable.
Pourghaznein et al. (2014) did not include any hypothesis (objective) or research question in their research study. The study does not explicitly outline the objective, and the reader only grasps it from a general understanding of the article. As an alternative, the authors decided to utilize powerful statements in the introduction as a way of backing the center of attention of their research. The authors also failed to define the key terms employed in the study, which could have made it easier to understand the significance of the research. Nevertheless, the authors would have ameliorated the study with the inclusion of at least a single research question or hypothesis to act as a comprehensive restatement of the intention of their research.
Regardless of their abundant application of references in the introduction section, the authors did not take account of a review of the literature part. This gives the readers the supposition that the authors chose to integrate the review of the literature in the introduction section. The method undertaken by Pourghaznein et al. (2014) is poor because though the introduction section is relatively long; it is insufficient and incomprehensive to depict the literature review properly. However, the introduction fabulously exemplifies the different injection techniques undertaken by nurses in dissimilar nations around the world and the impact on pain and bruising. The research carried out in the article is current and significant to today’s existing health concerns.
The researchers draw on a wide pool of recent references that are pertinent to the study to come up with a relevant and concise but too narrow review within the introduction. Apart from just in the introduction, the authors have relied on an extensive list of references all through the study. There is no evidence of bias as the introduction is directly associated with the development of the research. All things considered, the dependence on a widespread set of studies all through the introduction section reinforces the arguments and details offered (Yi et al., 2016). This makes the article comprehensible not only by nurses and other medical practitioners, but also laypersons such as patients, their family members, and any other interested reader.
a couple of Intensive Care Unit wards at two different teaching health
facilities in the metropolitan regions of Iran, 90 patients were randomly
chosen to embark on the study in mid-2011.The methodology of the study is quantitative and
the research design quasi-experimental. Apart from the methodology of the research being clearly defined,
the researchers identify and refine the dependent, independent, and demographic
variables. The identified sample size for the study was insufficient to achieve
a generalizable outcome of the quantitative study. However, the used sample is
superbly documented, covering even the six that were excluded because of
passing away or being discharged from the hospital and expresses the
demographic variables such as sex, age, and BMI.
To ascertain that just the most appropriate patients participated, the researchers used an inclusion standard, which chose the patients that had the interest of participating in the study, the capacity to respond to the inquiries and establish the extent of pain, and that were not affected by difficulties such as injuries, bruising, and blood clotting in the injected area. Nonetheless, the sample had an unrepresentative number of male and female participants as out of the 90 participants; there were 58 males and only 32 females thus resulting in an overrepresentation of the male patients. The overrepresentation could have affected the results of the research since the impact of injection duration and place on bruising and pain in the female patients was weakly represented.
After the administration of the questionnaire, quantitative data analysis was done using the SPSS software and presented by frequency, median, and standard deviation. The researchers rightfully carried out non-parametric statistical tests since not all quantitative variables have a normal distribution; furthermore, they did Cochran’s Q test to evaluate the dissimilarity in proportions involving four injection methods. All the approaches did not demonstrate any dissimilarities involving bruising and gender, bruising and BMI, and age and pain when the injection was done on the abdomen or thigh (every p value was >0.05), apart from the female patients that had greater BMI. The study progression and design are compatible with study purpose and structure since the quality of the research appears to depend on the quantitative approach and the selection of the used instruments. This is an original study, and its quantitative methodology provides a more enhanced standard of evidence with facilitated replication and rigor as compared to a qualitative approach. The use of a questionnaire in data collection and SPSS in statistical analysis is an appropriate form of reliability and enhancement of content validity as the instruments have been widely deemed effective.
Of crucial significance from the discussion is that a significant dissimilarity was identified when method C (which entailed fifteen seconds of injection time and five seconds of waiting prior to removing the needle) was compared to the other three methods where the number of bruises in this approach was considerably less. Furthermore, the extent of bruising in technique C was noticeably small when judged against the other approaches. Hence, I concur with the fact that though bruising and pain during the subcutaneous heparin injection may not be completely eradicated by any method, its degree could be alleviated. Pourghaznein et al. (2014) affirm that method C is an appropriate resolution for the lessening of pain and bruising and provide superb recommendations, which could guide further research on the subject. The writing in the study is clear and aboveboard.
The article is useful for evidence-based practice because of the proved fewer and minor bruises when using method C; this approach could be recommended as a suitable means of subcutaneous heparin injection. Moreover, the authors state that with respect to the alleviation of pain in subcutaneous heparin injection, the abdomen is recommended when compared to the thigh. Rather than merely lingering over the difficulties, the authors sought the proposition to augment the implications of the article through comparing four different methods. In this regard, the contributions given in the article about the means of alleviating bruising and pain in the subcutaneous injection of heparin with the help of injection duration and place are substantial. However, though the contributions of the article have a great significance in the medical field, the study carried out is inessential since it does not offer generalizable results.
Pourghaznein, T., Azimi, A. V., & Jafarabadi, M. A. (2014). The effect of injection duration and injection site on pain and bruising of subcutaneous injection of heparin. Journal of clinical nursing, 23(7-8), 1105-1113.
Yi, L. J., Shuai, T., Tian, X., Zeng, Z., Ma, L., & Song, G. M. (2016). The effect of subcutaneous injection duration on patients receiving low-molecular-weight heparin: Evidence from a systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Sciences, 3(1), 79-88. Retrieved from http://ac.els-cdn.com/S2352013215300405/1-s2.0-S2352013215300405-main.pdf?_tid=9aa55784-9259-11e7-a72b-00000aab0f6b&acdnat=1504630100_dac05ff21eb2f6d61eef64c819f6cfb4