Introduction
The present work contains an analysis and critique of the article written by Militello, Kelly, and Melnyk (2012). The critique contains elements of Synopsis and Credibility.
Synopsis
The integrative research review addresses the topic of the impact of text messaging on the promotion of a healthy lifestyle. The authors of the article intended to find out whether text messaging could help children and adolescents maintain a healthy lifestyle.
The authors have identified several potential individual research reports. It was done by the method of searching on such databases as MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and others. The search strategy was described by the authors (Militello, Kelly, & Melnyk, 2012, p. 67).
The researchers have also specified the factors that determined the inclusion of a study in their analysis. Among these factors were using trial or quasi-experiment as research design, being published in English, having 18-yea-old and younger individuals as participants, establishing a link between text messaging and health behavior, measuring health behavior outcomes via pretests or posttests, and being published in a peer-reviewed journal (Militello et al., p. 67). The research review included seven studies that were presented in eight articles.
In selected research studies, the following research designs were used. Most of the studies were using randomized control trials, one article presented a randomized crossover design study, and another one was a quasi-experimental study (Militello et al., 2012, p. 68).
The authors of the analyzed article have made consistent and significant-conclusion based on across-studies evidence. They have concluded that the use of mobile phones, particularly for text messaging, can serve to promote a healthy lifestyle among children and adolescents, which has serious implications for clinical practice. Also, they have concluded that parental control is needed to establish the link between a healthy lifestyle and text messaging (Militello et al., 2012, p. 74-75).
Credibility
The authors of the review have defined their topic enough for a reader to understand. They stated the general topic and explained what were their aims, intentions, and implications when they started working on this research (Militello et al., 2012, p. 66).
The scholars have presented a detailed description of the methods that they employed to perform this research. They have described the general review methods, explaining that the PICO question was used to guide their work. They have also specified their criteria for inclusion and exclusion of articles, as well as they, presented a comprehensive explanation of their search methods and the methods of data analysis (Militello et al., 2012, p. 67-68).
In my opinion, the search for study reports performed by Militello, Kelly, and Melnyk is comprehensive and unbiased. The exclusion and inclusion criteria were justified by the aims of the research and did not contain any bias. These criteria also touched different aspects of the studies, which makes the search comprehensive.
The authors have performed a quality assessment of the studies that they included in the review. The methodology of the quality assessment was defined in their work (Militello et al., 2012, p. 72).
The review contains a detailed discussion of the design characteristics of the included studies. The findings of these studies are also presented in sufficient detail, and their implications are discussed (Militello et al., 2012, p. 73-74).
As I am sure, the authors have performed a synthesis of the findings of the examined articles to form an accurate and evidence-supported conclusion about the impact of text messaging on the healthy lifestyle of children and adolescents. Instead of merely repeating the conclusions of others, the authors have successfully integrated these conclusions to form their one.
Unfortunately, the authors did not explain the differences that may have occurred between various studies examined in their work. Moreover, these probable differences were not mentioned in the review. It seems from the aim of the work that the authors were looking for opinions on the bridge between texting and health behavior and were not focused on analyzing the differences between the studies.
Similarly, the results of distinguishing between those conclusions that are based on sufficient evidence and those relying on inferior evidence were not found in this research. In the same way, the authors may have been pursuing a different aim.
In the review, I have identified two conclusions that were based on consistent evidence from two or more studies. First, cell phones are in a unique position that allows them to close the gaps between health disparities across generations (Militello et al., 2012, p. 74). Second, that the qualities of mobile phones, such as their wide variety of functions, being omnipresent, and the easiness of use, make them a necessary option for clinical care to promote a healthy lifestyle and influence health behavior (Militello et al., 2012, p. 75). The sufficient evidence supporting these conclusions makes them credible.
Conclusion
The authors of the examined article have demonstrated how the evidence regarding vital clinical problems can be found, collected, and systematized through an integrative research review. To my firm conviction, this approach can be a valuable tool for solving serious problems of clinical care for the following reasons. First, it allows us to obtain the thoughts and opinions of distinguished researchers on the problem of interest. Second, it is possible to perform a quality assessment during such a review, so that only credible studies are considered. Third, it allows us to unite the strong points of other studies and avoid their weaknesses to create a comprehensive solution for the studied problem. Considering these advantages, I would use this approach in my clinical practice.
Reference
Militello, L.K., Kelly, S.A., & Melnyk, B. M. (2012). Systematic review of text-messaging interventions to promote healthy behaviors in pediatric and adolescent populations: Implications for clinical practice and research. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 9(2), 66-77. Web.