The ability to critically analyze information is crucial for a nurse as a researcher. Many academic enterprises rely on using secondary sources to build up an evidence base for prospective research. At the same time, there is no such thing as a perfect article. All articles, including those published in peer-reviewed journals, are going to have flaws. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the article written by Spraque, Reynolds, and Brindley, titled “Patient isolation precautions: Are they worth it?” and published in Canadian Respiratory Journal in 2016.
The title of the article is somewhat obscure. While it certainly addresses the subject at hand, which is the necessity of isolation precautions for elderly patients in particular cases and scenarios, it can be easily misinterpreted. It serves more to catch the reader’s attention rather than inform them about the topic of the article. According to Rodrigues (2013), a good title uses descriptive terms to highlight the content of the paper accurately.
The abstract does a much better job of representing the article and its subject. It mentions the population, the purpose of the study, and the reasons behind the research. However, the abstract does not provide a summary of the findings, meaning that the reader will need to read the article to find out about the results and conclusions. While it is not a strict requirement, the purpose of an abstract serves to provide a summary of the paper and highlight important parts of it, which include the results and conclusion (“Writing an abstract,” 2012).
The introduction section does not serve its purpose. Instead of introducing the readers into the subject, highlighting the significance of the research question, and offering relevant statistics on the matter, the authors jump to describing different kinds of bacteria that isolation precautions are supposed to counter. While this is valuable data, it does not feel like it belongs at the very beginning of the article.
While the statement of the problem is present both in the Abstract and at the end of the Introduction section, it does not have a sub-header that would help to identify it. Regardless, it is well-formulated and supported by evidence found throughout the text.
The authors identify several research questions in their research. These questions address monetary expenditures associated with isolation precautions, downsides of isolation precautions (namely psychological effects on the elderly patients), and the general question of whether or not isolation precautions are “worth it” in certain cases and scenarios. Lastly, the researchers try to answer the question of when it is appropriate to desolate the patients as well as suggest alternatives for isolation.
The researchers have no mention of any theoretical framework in their research. While it is certain that some sort of theory was motivating the reasons behind the research, it is not explicitly stated which theoretical framework was used in this case. Adding a theoretical framework section would improve the readers’ understanding of the article and ensure no misinterpretations of the motivations of the researchers.
The article does not have a dedicated literature review section. However, since this article is a qualitative paper that reviews and interprets the findings of numerous other authors, it could be argued that the entire article is a literature review and thus solicits no dedicated subheader Regardless, having one would improve the article’s structure.
The primary data collection method for this article was a literature review. The author assembled, structured, and synthesized information from a total of 26 sources. All sources are peer-reviewed academic articles published between 2002 and 2015, with the majority of them published between 2010 and 2015. The sources mentioned are either RTCs, cohort studies, or literature reviews. They are considered trustworthy (“Deciding whether a source is reliable,” 2017). The older sources are referenced due to the fact the researchers were limited by the amount of research material.
The analysis and synthesis of available data do not venture outside of the topic outlined by the research questions, is on point, and avoids dubiousness and statements not supported by evidence.
The results of the research are well-structured. The authors use tables and graphs to help readers visualize them. However, instead of having a dedicated “Results” section, the results are mentioned throughout the entire paper to support the research question. This makes the entirety of findings relatively hard to assess.
Although the discussion of findings can be found throughout the entire article, the subsection titled “So is Isolation worth It?” can serve as a discussion section, as it mentions almost every point made in previous sections about the research question, the assumed theoretical framework, and the significance to nursing practice.
The article does not have a dedicated section that addresses the limitations of the research. However, throughout the article, the researchers mention several times that the only real limitation is the lack of data. They state that the amount of literature dedicated to the effectiveness of isolation precautions is low and that the purpose of their research is to review the existing information and attract attention to the problem.
The researchers conclude that more information on the subject of the efficiency of isolation precautions is required and that the medical workers and policymakers should revise the absolute status of isolation precautions in certain medical cases, to save money and protect the patients from physical and psychological harm associated with isolation precautions.
Because this is a literature review rather than an RTC, a quasi-RTC or a cohort study, it is considered, the source has the 5th level of evidence (“Nursing resources: Levels of evidence (I-VII),” 2017). However, some of the information provided in it can be considered to have the 1st level of evidence due to being cited from a randomized control trial.
While it is impossible to use the results of the article in direct nursing practice, it provides an excellent literature review, upon which further research into the matter can be built. I can use the article in my nursing practice as part of the theoretical material assembled to justify and structure a study dedicated to the efficiency of isolation precautions.
Although the article offers valuable insights and could serve as an evidence base for further research, its structure is very unorthodox, which may confuse the readers, who are more familiar with classic structures for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (“Systematic reviews and meta-analyses,” 2013). Should the structure be improved and the title changed to represent the subject described in the article, it would be much easier to navigate and find the required information. Adding a theoretical framework section is essential, as the readers need to understand the theoretical and ethical background of the problem.
References
Deciding whether a source is reliable. (2017)
Nursing resources: Levels of evidence (I-VII). (2017)
Rodrigues, V. (2013). How to write an effective title and abstract and choose the appropriate keywords.
Sprague, E., Reynolds, S., & Brindley, P. (2016). Patient isolation precautions: Are they worth it? Canadian Respiratory Journal, 2016(1), 1-5. doi: 10.1155/2016/5352625
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a step-by-step guide. (2013)
Writing an abstract. (2012)