The article by Scheepmans et al. (2013) is titled “Restraint use in home care: A qualitative study from a nursing perspective”, and it is an appropriate description of this work. The abstract is well-structured and contains all the necessary sections that would help to get a better understanding of the background of the study and the methods that were used. Moreover, one could look at the results and evaluate the findings before reviewing an article. The fact that keywords are provided is also vital, and it is much easier to utilize databases. The primary aim of the study is clearly described in the introduction, and the authors devote enormous attention to details. The issue is properly introduced in the first few paragraphs to ensure that the audience is aware of the scope of this problem, and understands why it needs to be studied. The reasoning for conducting this study is provided, and the authors believe that numerous complications are associated with this topic.
For instance, the process of decision-making may be quite problematic because guidelines are not well-developed, and they do not have an understanding of what course of actions should be taken in situations that are not expected (Scheepmans et al., 2013). A research question is defined in this study and it is focused on the way restraints are used and viewed by health professionals. The theoretical framework has been described to ensure that the audience has an understanding of core concepts, and it was necessary to extend one of the definitions. The literature review is appropriate in this case, and there is no evidence of bias. Moreover, it is quite comprehensive, and numbers from recent studies are provided to explain the scope of this problem, and why research is required (Wood, & Ross-Kerr, 2010). The design that has been selected is appropriate because the opinions and ideas of nurses on this topic are of utmost importance, and an interview is an efficient approach in most cases and has proven to be effective (Gerrish & Lathlean, 2015). It is possible to state that the sample size is relatively small in this study, but it is paramount to understand that author had to deal with several difficulties because the amount of research on this topic is limited.
The authors have contacted facilities and looked for professionals that would meet the criteria. However, it would be beneficial to survey several institutions and regions to avoid possible bias and improve the level of reliability (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2014). Nevertheless, it does fit the design of the study, and the information that is received can be viewed as statistically significant. A research instrument was required, and it was utilized to collect all the necessary information. Data were collected with the use of interviews and answers were recorded on digital devices. Another aspect that needs to be discussed is that the authors did not focus on reliability and validity, but the research team tried to ensure that possible bias is avoided (Boswell & Cannon, 2015). The analytical approach used by authors is reasonable and based on questions and a research outline.
They use a set of techniques to ensure that information received is appropriate. Results are presented clearly, and all of the core aspects are discussed. Statistical data is not presented, and the most attention is devoted to similarities and particular patterns in answers to identify which areas are especially problematic (Beck, 2013). The most attention is devoted to the relationship of the results to the theoretical framework and selected questions. The data received is qualitative, and it supports the hypothesis. However, the importance of such information for nursing is not fully explained, and it would be beneficial to explain how these aspects are connected to ensure that the audience understands how such concepts can be applied in practice. It is possible to see connections with other areas where restraint is used to enhance knowledge (Freeman, Hallett, & McHugh, 2016).
The authors acknowledge the fact that this research has limitations, and possible consequences are also discussed. The sampling strategy is viewed as especially problematic because nurses could have participated because of other factors and did not volunteer. Also, they recognize that the depth of the data received is limited, and the number of interviews was smaller than planned. The authors did not provide any recommendations for practice and policymakers because they have identified that this topic is understudied. Furthermore, they suggest that much more information should be collected, and guidelines must be developed to improve the experience for patients and trained professionals. However, authors could have listed a set of approaches that could be used to increase the efficiency of the process.
The level of evidence is relatively small in this case because individuals were not randomly assigned to groups, and the criteria were too specific. Moreover, it is possible to classify it as level III according to the National Guideline Clearinghouse because the study was not experimental.
Such recommendations can be used in practice because it is evident that it is a significant problem that is frequently overlooked. Moreover, much more attention should be devoted to research in this area. It is stated that the opinions of other professionals on this topic also should have been considered, and the information regarding the experience of patients that is currently available is not sufficient.
References
Beck, C. T. (2013). Routledge international handbook of qualitative nursing research. Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge.
Boswell, C., & Cannon, S. (2015). Introduction to nursing research (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Chernomas, W., & Shapiro, C. (2013). Stress, depression, and anxiety among undergraduate nursing students. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 10(1), 255-266.
Freeman, S., Hallett, C., & McHugh, G. (2016). Physical restraint: Experiences, attitudes and opinions of adult intensive care unit nurses. Nursing in Critical Care, 21(2), 78-87.
Galbraith, N. D., & Brown, K. E. (2011). Assessing intervention effectiveness for reducing stress in student nurses: A quantitative systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(4), 709-721.
Gerrish, K., & Lathlean, J. (2015). The research process in nursing (7th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Gray, J. R., Grove, S. K., & Burns, N. (2013). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (7th ed.). Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Health Sciences.
Grove, S. K., & Cipher, D. J. (2016). Statistics for nursing research: A workbook for evidence-based practice (2nd ed.). Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Health Sciences.
Houser, J. (2011). Nursing research (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2014). Nursing research: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice (8th ed.). Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Health Sciences.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2013). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice (8th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Scheepmans, K., Bernadette, C.D., Paquay, L., Van Gansbeke, H., Boonen, S., & Milisen, K. (2014). Restraint use in home care: A qualitative study from a nursing perspective. BMC Geriatrics, 14(1), 1-7.
Suresh, S. (2015). Nursing research and statistics (2nd ed.). Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Health Sciences.
Wood, M. J., & Ross-Kerr, J. C. (2010). Basic steps in planning nursing research: From question to proposal (7th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.