Protection of Human Participants
Like any other study, Study of nurses’ knowledge about palliative care: A quantitative cross-sectional survey by Prem et al. had several risks to face. First, some of the participants could have chosen the answers that would make them look good. Second, some of the questions could have been misinterpreted by the participants. Though the researchers never mention any of these threats, the latter are quite evident. As far as the institutional review board, no information was provided by the researchers.
As the researchers explain, the members of a multispecialty tertiary care hospital were the key research participants. The authors also indicate that only the nurses attending or having attended a continuing professional development program were allowed to partake in the research (Prem et al., 2012). In order to make sure that each of the team members participates voluntarily, each of them signed an informed consent prior to be given a questionnaire. The given step can be viewed as adequate and, therefore, guarantees that the research results should be objective and that the researchers complied with the rights of the research participants (Burns & Grove, 2011).
Data Collection
Prem et al. define the key professional and individual variables for the research. However, as far as the actual independent and dependent variables or the research are concerned, the authors of the study do not specify the aforementioned elements. This does seem a major disadvantage of the study; without clear markers on what the paper is going to study, and what elements are going to be used as the tools for observing the changes in the subject matter, the reader may lose the track of the key argument.
One can assume, though, that the tools and tests, which were utilized in order to check the skills of the staff, were the independent variables, whereas the quality of the services provided by the nurses could be viewed as the dependent variables. As it has been stressed, the data was collected with the help of several tests; particularly, Karl-Pearson’s co-efficient (Sharma, 2005) was calculated in order to assess the quality of the staff’s services. The coefficient, in its turn, was defined by using the SPSS version 16.0 for Windows (Prem et al., 2012). Questionnaires were utilized as the main method of data collection, because of the small amount of participants (Prem et al., 2012). Unfortunately, the researchers do not provide any information regarding the time that the project took. The sequence of data collection was quite simple; a questionnaire was handed to a participant, the latter filled in the blank fields, asking questions when certain issues were unclear; afterwards, the questionnaire was given to the research members for an analysis.
Data Management and Analysis
According to the researches, a vast and all-embracing “comparison across individual and professional variables for both dimensions” (Prem et al., 2012, p. 124) was carried out with the help of the ANOVA. The correlations, in their turn, were calculated with Karl-Pearson’s co-efficient; as it has been explained above, the calculations were made in the SPSS version 16.0 for Windows. The authors do not provide any comments concerning the rigor maintenance; it is assumed that the research process was quite monotonous and that no major emotional shifts in the process could be observed. The fact that the authors never speak about the research bias that may have occurred in the course of the study is quite suspicious; the absence of any comments on the topic makes one think that either the research was conducted in a hasty and careless manner, or that the authors of the study attempted at disclosing certain differences in their opinions regarding the issue. However, the fact that no severe disagreements emerged in the course of the study may also signify that the research results were crystal clear and that the data observed and noted down in the process of the research could not possibly have any double meaning.
Findings / Interpretation of Findings
By far one of the most intriguing sections of the research, the findings showed that the nurses in the specified healthcare facility had little to no knowledge on palliative care; more to the point, according to the researchers’ conclusions, the nurses were much better at psychiatric issues than the specifics of palliative care. The findings seem to be quite valid; after all, the authors designed a specific measurement instrument and applied it in different settings with different results. As Prem et al. explain, “The study findings have important curricular implications for nurses and practical implications in palliative care” (Prem et al., 2012, p. 126). The authors of the study did not mention any major limitations, either. The authors represented their findings in a very orderly and consistent manner, with graphic evidence to prove their point, including diagrams and tables. The study implications show that staff training must be provided by healthcare services; in addition, the results have shown that the standards for hiring palliative care specialists are disturbingly low. The further studies, therefore, will focus on the means to improve the palliative nursing standards and promote skills training among palliative care specialists.
Reference List
Burns, N., & Grove, S. (2011). Understanding nursing research. 5th ed. Maryland Heights, MO: Elsevier/Saunders.
Prem, V., Karvannan, H., Kumar, S. P., Karthikbabu, S., Syed, N., Sisodia, N. & Jaykumar, S. (2012). Study of nurses’ knowledge about palliative care: A quantitative cross-sectional survey. Indian Journal of Palliative Care, 18(2), 122-127. Web.
Sharma, A. K. (2005). Text book of correlations and regression. New Delhi, IN: Discovery publishing House.