The report under discussion is about the rising issue of osteoporosis in women, and the methods used to find out the amount of knowledge they possess. This paper tells about the quality of the various sections of the report, and is an analysis of how the researchers went about with the results obtained and the theories used. The study carried out is a useful one for nurses and health professionals. An assessment of the further possibility of researching the same topic has been made in this paper.
Osteoporosis is a rising issue amongst women today, and this is what makes this report eligible to be undertaken for critique. The study contains a group which has a tailored intervention in comparison with a group which does not.
The title is sufficiently giving information on what the article is about. It has been clearly stated that tailored interventions are being carried out in the study to enhance prevention of osteoporosis in women. However, there are no key variables given which would indicate the study population.
The abstract gives us complete information about what the paper holds. The problem, methods, results and conclusions have been briefly discussed in the form of headings, making it clear and concise to the reader. It can be easily interpreted what the report is about, and how the researchers went about with the population they chose for the study.
The problem is stated decidedly, and is not difficult to identify. The issue discussed here is basically to know the amount of knowledge possessed by the selected population, regarding osteoporosis and its causes.
The statement of the problem is a convincing one for further studies to be carried out. It is interesting also in the respect that usually accurate data regarding people’s various problems is identified, whereas this report deals with the amount of information the population possesses, thus making it different and distinguishable from other studies.
The problem has significance for nursing and is especially significant for those involved in orthopedics and health promotion programs. The health beliefs of individuals is seen and assessed before treatment is given to osteoporosis patients.
The method used for this study was a quasi experiment on two groups; one was a controlled one and the other a treatment group. Comparisons were made between the results obtained from the two groups. The quantitative approach seems inappropriate, as the ratio of the controlled to the uncontrolled group of women is not balanced. It is a 101 to 23 ratio, which does not seem correct.
A quantitative approach is alright, as long as the results obtained are authentic and influential. Whichever approaches are employed in the study should be largely convincing to viewers.
The research questions are three in number, overtly stating what the study is trying to analyze. There does not seem to be anything missing in the research questions compared to the analyses made in the report. Everything is addressed sufficiently.
The variables and study population are not given clearly in the questions. They lack complete information. They just state separately of the areas of knowledge that are to be probed into.
The questions are consistent with the literature review and the conceptual framework to an extent, but are not directly related to it. The conceptual framework has no direct link with the questions either. The questions ask about the knowledge of osteoporosis and not cure of the disease itself.
The literature is based mainly on primary sources and is not up to date, as most of the reference books date back to the nineties. Information for studies carried out should be based on as recent references as possible.
The review of literature provides some information based on the knowledge of osteoporosis and women. But more is given on the disease.
The review is not sufficient for a new study to be undertaken concerning osteoporosis, as the information given is much generalized. The rights of the participants were guarded and there was no way they could be harmed through this study.
Results and Discussion
The study was carried out to find out about the knowledge levels of the women regarding osteoporosis. There were no risks or benefits for them.
The key concepts are defined well, providing information on how women can assess themselves and their conditions. The Health Belief Model and its revised form have been used for the theoretical approach of this study. They seem adequate for analyses.
The questionnaire was used for the study, apart from which there could be no other source to find out the opinions of the participants. So the design used was acceptable according to the study.
Comparisons between the two groups of participants were made, which were basically the results obtained from this study. The findings were enhanced due to these comparisons, achieving what was needed to be known from this study. There is no specification of any data collection points in the study conducted.
The population of the participants has been given in an exact form, which are 124 in number. Description of the population is also given sufficiently.
The sample was described in sufficient detail, as was essential for the study. No other point seems to be missed out which could further improve the results.
There were no sample biases in the study and the sampling design incorporated in it was acceptable for the research to be carried out.
The sample size was adequate but there was no power analysis used to estimate the needs of the sample size There are no specific conceptual or operational definitions given in the report.
There were four sections in the questionnaire given out to the participants, which comprised four tools. Telephonic interviews were also carried out in the groups with the tailored interventions.
The specific instruments were adequate for use in the study being conducted, according to the purpose and population of the study. The specific instruments were adequate for use in the study being conducted, according to the purpose and population of the study. The analyses were not done to address each question individually, as they were all interrelated and were concerned with the amount of knowledge that the patients possessed.
The number of groups being compared was two. The statistical methods used for the measurements of the variables were acceptable. Certain chi tests and t-tests were carried out for analysis.
There is a tailored intervention in one of the two groups chosen for the study. It has been described well that the tailored group results were taken according to results they had obtained from them via telephone, and all implementation took place efficiently, with the use of questionnaires and phone interviews. The questions were related to the knowledge they possessed regarding osteoporosis risks and calcium intake, behavioral patterns, exercise, and smoking.
The methods used for analysis were good enough as there was no calculative result to be obtained from the participants. The questions were based on the knowledge they would possess and the variables were managed well by the employed methods.
There is no evidence of the usage of the intention-to-treat approach for the intervention studies. There is also no mention of Type I or Type II errors in the report.
The study’s findings are all within the conceptual framework undertaken. They are according to the theory-based models, and the self-efficacy model. They additionally show the results gained from the health belief models.
Data was collected in a way which could not arise any bias. But the eligibility of the data collectors has not been mentioned in the study. We do not know who collected the data.
The interpretations and results coincide with each other, but the limitations that were faced were unexpected, as they were related to the inappropriate sample size, and the sensitivity of the exercise instruments. The interpretation that there would be less perceived barriers to calcium intake and exercise in the tailored group turned out to be the opposite resultantly.
The researchers have stated that there is further need for study in this subject under discussion. It has been specified that the intervention is important for orthopedic nurses and health care individuals, who are responsible for health promotion and prevention of osteoporosis.
The report is well written but there seems to be insufficient information and lack of clarity and brevity at some parts, which makes the reader re-read to get the point across.
The findings are easily accessible to practicing nurses for their assistance if need be. The report is written in a way to make the observations and findings easy to interpret. However, the findings are not in tabular form, neither is there any chart to show the differences of results obtained or their comparison. The results are simply summarized. The findings obtained are given in a normal way, with no such possibility of a meta-analysis or information for evidence-based practice.
The clinical and methodologic qualifications of the researchers have made the findings been made with much confidence and they have tried to compile the report with a substance of its own.
The limitations mentioned are not such that would affect the faith we get from the results of the study. The results are valid and hold true for what they have been attained.
This study gives meaningful evidence to the field of nursing, by provision of authentic information that may prove beneficial to nurses who are practicing medicine. Health professionals and nurses may both benefit from these findings to an extent. They may know of the knowledge the patients have regarding their illness and the treatments they are going to go through.
The study on the whole was an average one. The intervention did hold some importance, but is not a topic that produces further questions in the mind related to it. It can be referred to for practicing purposes, but does not seem to qualify for an enhanced research to be undertaken further.
Carol A. Sedlak, PhD, RN, ONC, Kent State University, College of Nursing, Kent, OH.
Margaret O. Doheny, PhD, RN, FAAN, Kent State University, College of Nursing, Kent, OH.
Patricia J. Estok, PhD, Kent State University, College of Nursing, Kent, OH. and Richard A. Zeller, PhD, RN, ONC, Kent State University, College of Nursing, Kent, OH. (2005)
Tailored Interventions to Enhance Osteoporosis Prevention in Women. Orthopaedic Nursing; 2005. 24(4).