Introductory Elements
The quality of diabetes management in primary care remains a critical question in many countries. In their study conducted in the United States, Lutfiyya et al. (2017) examine the presence of differences in care related to the type of provider. In general, the paper’s title adequately represents its purpose, whereas the abstract is well-organized and contains short and informative statements. The study’s aims are stated in the abstract and the body of the report.
They involve examining potential links between the outcomes/scope of diabetes care and the type of healthcare provider. The research question is in complete accord with the aims and specific enough. The literature review in the background section is not divided into themes, but it offers a summary of recent and relevant sources, thus providing a rationale for the study (Lubke, Paulus, Britt, & Atkins, 2017; Lutfiyya et al., 2017). The theoretical framework is not presented with clarity, and no particular theories explaining provider-related differences in care outcomes are mentioned.
Methods
The utilized methods and details of data collection procedures also require consideration. Due to the use of de-identified records, Lutfiyya et al. (2017) did not need participants’ consent to process the information on their treatment outcomes and medical history (Kayaalp, 2018). Thus, no specific measures to protect participants’ privacy are mentioned in the report. As for the design, Lutfiyya et al. (2017) conducted a cross-sectional retrospective study.
Instead of practical interventions or treatment, data on Medicare claims in 2012 were extracted and statistically analyzed. The studied population is presented by diabetes patients, primarily older adults, and the sample size exceeds 271 thousand people (Lutfiyya et al., 2017). Data collection and measurement are thoroughly described and involve no ethical issues, and the methods are consistent with the identified purpose. In particular, the researchers provide a detailed discussion of related procedures, including data extraction using SAS software, variable selection, and data filtering to exclude participants that do not meet the inclusion criteria.
Results
The process of data analysis is also addressed in the selected study. In particular, the researchers pay attention to the use of the MPI in data stratification, as well as descriptive analysis and statistical tests to spot inter-group differences (Lutfiyya et al., 2017). With the help of SAS and SPSS, t-tests and z-tests at a 0.05 level of significance were conducted. Based on the provided description of statistical procedures, they align with the stated goal and research questions. The results are also presented in an understandable way since the researchers provide four tables with detailed comments (Lutfiyya et al., 2017).
According to the findings, better patient outcomes were in the group seen by NPs, and there were significant differences between NP- and physician-led populations in terms of services utilization and the costs of treatment.
Discussion
The findings are interpreted with reference to the results of previous research in the field. In the discussion section, the authors restate the findings and mention the similarities between different research groups’ results. As for implications, they discuss the results’ practical potential, impact on provider licensing procedures, and NP’s great role in the workforce. The study’s limitations, such as the sample’s representativeness and the absence of demographic data, are recognized. Finally, it is recommended to conduct similar studies in other countries with developed economies to draw comparisons between healthcare systems.
Global Issues
Overall, the report is written and organized in a detailed way, which allows analyzing it critically. The accessibility of findings to nursing professionals is difficult to estimate. The researchers’ qualifications and previous experience add credibility to their findings and final thoughts. In spite of the limitations, the results seem to be valid due to the sample size and the thoroughness of data filtering. Finally, the study contributes to the field by adding new knowledge peculiar to the outcomes of NP-led diabetes care.
References
Kayaalp, M. (2018). Patient privacy in the era of big data. Balkan Medical Journal, 35(1), 8-17.
Lubke, J., Paulus, T. M., Britt, V. G., & Atkins, D. P. (2017). Hacking the literature review: Opportunities and innovations to improve the research process. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 56(4), 285-295.
Lutfiyya, M. N., Tomai, L., Frogner, B., Cerra, F., Zismer, D., & Parente, S. (2017). Does primary care diabetes management provided to Medicare patients differ between primary care physicians and nurse practitioners? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73(1), 240-252.