This paper reviews a exploration by Gelfman, Meier, and Morrison( 2008) that explored the impact of palliative care( PC) on the case’s family. The study gained the Institutional Review Board’s( Mount Sinai School of Medicine) blessing previous to inception, which allowed the experimenters to do with the exploration without reaching caregivers.
Informed concurrence was attained via phone, whereby the study’s objects were revealed to the subjects. also, actors were informed that participation was voluntary and they could withdraw at any point during the exploration. In the study, no clear vittles were made to save the subjects ’ obscurity and confidentiality. The styles used to cover the demographic data of the repliers( family members) and the cases aren’t apparent in this study.
Vulnerable subjects are actors who “ warrant the capacity to give informed concurrence ”( Gelfman etal., 2008,p. 24). The study’s addition criteria assured that only actors progressed 18 times and over could share. therefore, the repliers weren’t ‘ vulnerable subjects ’. likewise, there’s no substantiation of compulsion in this study, as subjects shared freely and were allowed to discontinue their engagement on their own volition. nonetheless, it isn’t clear whether the exploration’s benefits to the actors overbalanced its damages.
The check included two telephone interviews conducted “ between three and six months after the death of the case ”( Gelfman etal., 2008,p. 22). It isn’t clear whether the actors could follow up on the interviews or ask the experimenter farther questions. still, the actors were informed that they could gain the results of the telephone check from one of the authors.
The exploration problem area is clear in the study. The authors note that exploration on the utility of sanitarium- grounded palliative care offered to cases ’ next of kin is skimp. still, the problem/ purpose statement isn’t brief. also, exploration questions are lacking in this study. The crucial variables( psychosocial support, satisfaction, and tone- efficacity) as well as the study’s target population( PC cases ’ family members) are included in the composition.
It’s easy to make a determination that the study is quantitative because the authors write that the exploration involved “ prospective quantitative telephonic interviews ”( Gelfman etal., 2008,p. 23). likewise, it can be concluded that the empirical data gathered covered the content of interest because the authors used the ABFMI tool, which is a vindicated instrument for assessing the effectiveness of end- of- life care( Gelfman etal., 2008).
It appears that the study was ethical because the results of the telephone check were kept nonpublic. also, the study’s objects were revealed to the actors and informed concurrence sought previous to the inception of the study. It’s apparent that the study was doable since the connections of cases ’ next of kin were available. therefore, it was easy to track and communicate the actors. The study establishes that PC plays a pivotal part in furnishing meeting the care requirements of the case and his/ her family. This finding is significant to palliative nursing care.
Gelfman etal.( 2008) reviewed a number of former studies to give a base for their study. The literature review is comprehensive, as it covers fox studies fastening on the part of palliative care in perfecting the issues of rehabilitated cases and their families.
The review of literature is also terse and specific. also, the review flows in a logical manner, as it begins with studies that are more general before narrowing down to analogous inquiries on the content. All the sources cited in the study are applicable, as they all concentrate on the palliative care and its impact on case and family health issues. The authors estimate each composition critically to identify gaps in exploration, which form the focus of their study.
In the literature review, the experimenters use wide- ranging sources, including peer- reviewed journal papers. Only current sources( 2000- 2007) are included in the literature review. Classic sources on the content haven’t been used. also, the experimenters rephrase the information espoused from the cited sources. On the other hand, direct quotations have been avoided in the composition. It’s apparent that the authors only presents the supporting proposition and uses applicable exploration to support it.
The experimenters leave out opposing propositions and views regarding the benefits of PC interventions to family members. It’s to determine that the study uses only primary sources since all the papers cited are peer- reviewed papers from different journals. also, all the sources cited in the body of the composition are included in the reference list. In total, sixteen papers cited in the paper are given in the reference runner. The sources appear to be free of crimes, as the same citation style is used to source them.
In the composition, the experimenters give a clear theoretical frame for their study. They explain that information PC programs reduce family torture, especially when the case is under end- of- life care. Grounded on this frame, they examine the impact of sanitarium- grounded palliative care on the health issues of the cases and their families.
This frame is predicated on the nursing proposition of holistic care( Dossey, Keegan & Guzzetta, 2004).). also, this frame appears applicable for this study, which focuses on the health issues of family members of cases under PC. The authors easily define the generalities of palliative care, end- of- life opinions, family demographics, and tone- efficacity. In the results section, the authors present the connections between the different generalities in a clear manner.
The experimenters identify propositional statements in the preface, which form the base of the composition’s exploration question. They easily state that exploration on the relationship between sanitarium- grounded PC and the health issues of the family members is lacking. Nieswiadomy( 2008) writes that studies that include exploration questions are generally exploratory. The composition’s exploration question is to explore whether sanitarium- grounded PC consultations affect in bettered care delivery( Gelfman etal., 2008).
The experimenters give the delineations of the theoretical generalities tested in the study. They also relate these generalities to the study’s theoretical frame, which makes the composition’s purpose clearer. The experimenters set up that PC discussion improves the tone- efficacity of the family members. They relate this finding to the study’s frame and conclude that the objectification of family needs into PC programs can ameliorate the quality of care. therefore, this finding provides support for the study’s theoretical frame, as stated in the introductory part of the composition.
The study doesn’t have a thesis statement on the anticipated results of the check. rather, the authors present a statement of the problem from which they draw a exploration question. The authors neither easily define their thesis nor do they expression it in a terse manner. also, the thesis isn’t presented as a declarative judgment , which makes it delicate to identify it.
The thesis isn’t tied to the study’s problem, as described in the preface section. In discrepancy, the study’s exploration question is directly tied to the exploration problem. The authors don’t decide their thesis from the study’s theoretical frame. On the other hand, the exploration question is drawn from the study’s theoretical frame.
The authors identify the study’s population, which includes PC cases ’ family members. They also identify the study variables as tone- efficacity and psychosocial support. These variables as well as the study population aren’t included in the thesis. In this exploration, descriptive statistics is current, which implies that thesis testing couldn’t be done. Descriptive statistics enable investigators to assess the subjects ’ behaviours and gests ( Polit, 1996). therefore, in this composition, the thesis isn’t stated as a directional exploration proposition. also, it isn’t apparent whether the thesis can be tested grounded on empirical data. It’s also not clear whether the thesis has only one clear vaticination.
In the composition, it’s apparent that the authors used a prospective quantitative study design. This design is applicable for answering the exploration questions in this study, as it allows experimenters to compare colorful variables and condense data into descriptive statistics, similar as probabilities. The prospective quantitative approach was the most applicable experimental design because it allowed the authors to follow up a cohort for a period of six months.
The authors used arbitrary slice to insure the representativeness of the sample and reduce pitfalls to internal validity. still, pitfalls to external validity or conception weren’t minimized because the repliers were drawn from one sanitarium( the Mount Sinai Medical Center). The assignment of the repliers to either the control group or experimental group isn’t easily described in the composition. The prospective quantitative design used in this study allowed experimenters to identify cause- and- effect connections between different variables, similar as PC care and family tone- efficacity or satisfaction( Gelfman etal., 2008).
Findings and Limitations
Since the study examined the impact of PC programs on health issues of the family members, deducible statistics was important. This miracle can only be described using quantitative approaches, as opposed to qualitative styles. The study, using the ABMFI check instrument, examined the private mortal passions, including tone- efficacity and satisfaction. still, the specific qualitative approach isn’t linked or described.
The study’s findings have counteraccusations for nursing practice. PC interventions conducted in sanitarium settings can enhance family satisfaction and cerebral health. therefore, nursing care programs should include family support and care. The experimenters easily describe how the repliers were named from “ cousins of cases who had passed on at Mount Sinai Medical Center in 2005 ”( Gelfman etal., 2008,p. 24). The determination of the sample size for this study isn’t clear. Convenience slice fashion was employed to elect eligible actors from a list of people who had lost their cousins at the sanitarium
A final sample of 243 repliers shared in this study. The donation of the data collection and analysis isn’t clear. still, experimenter bias was avoided by not informing the canvassers the family member whose case had been under palliative care previous to his death. The multivariate data analysis ways were applicable for this study, as they allowed the experimenters to compare different variables using ki- forecourt and t- test. The authors explain their findings and admit the limitations of the study at the end of the composition. They also give suggestions for farther exploration.