Introduction
This paper focuses on analyzing and evaluating a clinical research article entitled “Improving care for depression in obstetrics and gynecology: A randomized controlled trial” by Melville et al. (2014). Specifically, this paper discusses validity measurement, percentage, frequency distribution, cumulative percentage distribution, and a graph that the authors employed in the research article.
The Type of Validity Measurement Used
Analysis of the methodology shows that the research article employed convergent validity as a type of validity measurement. Convergent validity entails the use of more than one research instrument in measuring a certain construct of interest (Comer & Kendall, 2013). The degree of correlation of outcomes measured by different research instruments indicates the extent of validity measurement used. To ensure the validity of the outcomes, the study used the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (to assess the presence and the level of depression), the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-20 (rate the remission of depression), the Depression PORT Comorbidity Scale (for the assessment of medical comorbidity), the Sheehan Disability Scale (to measure functional status), MINI 5.0.0 Panic Module (the assessment of panic disorder) and PTSD-17 Item Checklist-Civilian Version ( for the assessment of PTSD (Melville et al., 2014). Thus, the use of diverse instruments in measuring the depression of women provided convergent validity to the findings.
Frequency Distribution
In presenting results, the authors used the frequency distribution of participants in various aspects. The frequency distribution is a form of descriptive statistics that shows the distribution of a given data point among a set of values (Grove & Cipher 2017). The study used frequency distribution in presenting results that 6,875 women participated in the study, 6,462 underwent screening, 1,019 screened positive for major depression, 650 underwent further eligibility screening, 445 excluded, and the remaining 205 randomized to standard care (103) and collaborative care (102). Moreover, the study used frequency distribution to indicate the number of women in the intervention group receiving different treatments. Out of 102 women, 55 received problem-solving care and antidepressants, 32 women received problem-solving care alone, 12 received antidepressants alone, and 4 received did not receive any form of treatment.
The Use of Percentage in the Article
The use of percentage is also evident in the article, for the researchers used it to augment the distribution of participants in sampling, screening, and treatment. Of the participants, 16% screened positive for major depression, while 64% of them consented for further eligibility, and 31% qualified for randomization. During the follow-up, 89%, 88%, and 83% of participants took part in 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months follow-ups. In the aspect of treatment, the researchers presented participants using percentages. Specifically, the researchers randomized 53.9% of participants to intervention groups of problem-solving care and antidepressants, 31.4% to problem-solving care, 11.8% to antidepressants, and 3.9% to no treatment.
Cumulative Percentage of Distribution
The research article employed cumulative percent in presenting the findings of the study. Since the study entailed measurement of the primary and secondary outcomes of depression over time, the cumulative percentage distribution is appropriate in depicting changes. The percentage distribution is apparent in the cumulative decrease of depression score, functional status, global improvement, quality of care, and treatment satisfaction at durations of 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months. According to Melville et al. (2014), at the end of the 12 months, the participants under collaborative care had at least a 50% decline in depression levels. Thus, the cumulative percentage indicates the degree of the impact of collaborative care on depression.
The Use of Graph
The study used a graph in depicting the trend and pattern of depression scores over time, measured using the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-20. Figure 2 is a line graph that displays the increasing mean change of depression scores from baseline to the duration of 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months (Melville et al., 2014). The line graph shows that collaborative care caused a greater decline in depression than standard care. In this view, the graph enhances the visual presentation of the findings and eases the understanding of subtle trends.
References
Comer, S., & Kendall, C. (2013). The Oxford handbook of research strategies for clinical psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Grove, K., & Cipher, J. (2017). Statistics for nursing research: A workbook for evidence-based practice (2nd ed.). St Louis, MO: Elsevier.
Melville, J. L., Reed, S. D., Russo, J., Croicu, C. A., Ludman,E. L., Cockburn, A. L., & Katon, W. K. (2014). Improving care for depression in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 123(6), 1237-1246.