Article Title and Abstract
The title of this article is straightforward in the sense that it captures the topic of interest and the direction of the research. For example, the reader is made aware of the study’s hypothesis and research methodologies through the title. The article’s abstract is also successful in outlining all the pertinent issues concerning this research. The topic of pain relief among cancer patients and its connection to the nursing practice also become clear through the article’s abstract. Nevertheless, the lengthy nature of the article’s abstract undermines its purpose. An abstract is supposed to be concise and short (Polit & Beck, 2008). The abstract in this article adopts a descriptive nature thereby overloading potential readers with too much information. Furthermore, it is not evident who the intended readers of this research are from its abstract. The authors of the article appear to make the abstract broad with the view of increasing readership. For example, in the abstract, the authors ‘advertise’ their article to nurses by stating that the article can improve nurses’ pain management skills.
Introduction, Statement of the Problem, Research Question, and Purpose of Study
The article’s introduction does not follow the expected paths. The authors transform the introduction into a literature review section by offering too much information. The statistics that are outlined in the introduction section of the paper appear misplaced. Furthermore, the readers do not expect to be synthesizing data in the introduction section of the article. Nevertheless, all the information that is provided in the article’s introduction is relevant although it is not in a simple format. For example, the article offers vital statistics on the connection between nurses and cancer patients. The article’s statement of purpose is concise and it introduces readers to a logical subject matter. The authors should have refrained from turning the article’s introduction into a literature review and introduced their purpose of study in a more subtle manner.
Data and Methods
The most outstanding aspect of the research study is the fact that the study utilizes what the authors refer to as a ‘sample of convenience’. In scientific research circles, samples of convenience are often recognized as weak research methodologies (Polit & Beck, 2008). However, the authors of this article are quick to recognize and acknowledge this method. A weak sampling method does not necessarily transpire to fragile results but all other factors have to be put into consideration. The sample size is not justified by the authors although its size is appropriate for this type of study. The constraints of the study’s data and methods are also expounded by the fact that the study was centered on a single Norwegian hospital.
All these factors make the study’s sample to be of questionable quality. The external validity of the data cannot be ascertained about good scholarly standards. The study’s research design is appropriate because it is independent. However, the study’s degree of corroboration does not meet the expected standards because the number of interviewers who were used in this study was quite low. Various independent reviewers need to correlate data after collection so that evident biases can be eliminated. Furthermore, the authors do not offer any evidence that their research methodologies utilized any form of peer debriefing before data was analyzed. The authors’ choice of data collection and research methodologies are informed by simplicity. This simplicity agenda leaves the research vulnerable to errors. The article does not disclose pertinent information concerning various details such as sample choices and interviewers.
Results, Discussion, and Limitations
The main limitation to the study is clearly stated by the authors and it expresses the author’s inability to harness the research process. This limitation is most likely a result of the study’s weak data collection methodologies. The results of the article spell out the various aspects of pain management that are relevant to nursing care. This section is laid out in a simple manner that makes it easy for the readers to synthesize this information (Rustøen, Gaardsrud, Leegaard, & Wahl, 2009). Nevertheless, the information about pain as outlined in these results cannot be centralized on cancer patients only. The discussion of the findings is clear and it is subdivided into sections that align with the purpose of the research study. The article’s conclusion is one of the best-executed sections of the study. The authors can wrap up the study in a coherent manner despite all the shortcomings that are evident throughout the study.
Conclusion
This study covers an important area of study for nurses. The rising cases of cancer around the world mean that nurses encountering more cancer patients daily. Nevertheless, the researchers deliver a below-average study that does not offer any major insights into the main topic (White, 2014). Inconsistencies are evident throughout the article.
References
Koehn, M. L., & Lehman, K. (2008). Nurses’ perceptions of evidence‐based nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(2), 209-215.
Kovner, T., Brewer, S., & Djukic, M. (2007). Newly licensed RNs’ characteristics, work attitudes, and intentions to work. The American Journal of Nursing, 107(9), 58-70.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2008). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Rustøen, T., Gaardsrud, T., Leegaard, M., & Wahl, A. K. (2009). Nursing pain Management-a qualitative interview study of patients with pain, hospitalized for cancer treatment. Pain Management Nursing, 10(1), 48-55.
White, J. (2014). Patterns of knowing: Review, critique, and update. Advances in Nursing Science, 17(4), 73-86.