Introduction
The research article under consideration for analysis is by Meneses, McNees, Loerzel, Su, Zhang and Hassey (2007). It is titled “Transition from treatment to survivorship: Effects of a psychoeducational intervention on quality of life in Breast Cancer Survivors.” This paper is a critical review and analysis of the research article.
Critical Analysis of the Article
The article provides a clear primary purpose which is to report the results on the effects of the BCEI study (Meneses et al., 2007). This purpose is congruent with the desire to address the shift from treatment to survivorship (Institute of Medicine & National Research Council, 2006). The article makes use of the conceptual framework of the quality of life based on the four dimensions namely psychological, spiritual, social and physical dimensions. While the conceptual framework is justified in analysis of the quality of life, there is the likelihood of influence of the context with quality of life adopting different meanings to patients in different areas and the justification is also based on past researchers with no recent support from research.
The literature review is included in the article. One of the strengths of the article is its focus on other research studies as they relate to the article with divisions on how they relate to quality of life and survivorship (LoBiondo-Wood & Haberm, 2010). The literature review however only involves the outlining of the reference articles but does not synthesize it to the researches that are reviewed.
The article makes use of a sample of 256 women who are randomly assigned either to the experimental or wait group. The inclusion of the experimental and wait groups is quite impressive for the comparison purposes for effective conclusions and allows for the close monitoring of the participants to be able to get more detailed results (LoBiondo-Wood & Haberm, 2010). Randomization and classifying the subjects into either the control or experimental groups have also ensured the internal validity of the study.
This is because this treatment helps to explain the differences in the two groups. However, the random selection of the participants to the groups is a weakness since the influence of the pre-entry factors would have influenced the research outcomes as well as the characteristics of the participants. The ethical considerations were made through the informed consent of the participants.
The research made use of two main measurement instruments which increased its objectivity and the ability to capture data with the reliability and validity established for the quality of life breast cancer survivorship. The Breast Cancer Treatment and Sociodemographic Data Tool was valid although its reliability was not outlined in the study. The quality of life of breast cancer survivors’ instrument was adapted from researches that were more than 10 years old from the date of the research thereby limiting its application.
The data collection process was great from the scale items of the instruments. However, the data was limited to only the four dimensions of quality of life thus limiting the possibility of other dimensions and other issues in quality of life for cancer survivors (Wyatt, Kurtz & Liken, 1993). The findings showed that there was improvement in the quality of life for the experimental group as compared to the wait group in reference to their baseline. These results were measured on different timelines as a response to the BCEI. However, this did not consider the characteristics of the patients which play a major role in determining their improvement (King, Kenny, Shiell, Hall & Boyages, 2000).
The timelines are effectively applied for the ultimate focus on the aim of the article. It is worth noting that the fact that the BCEI was applied to both groups limits the ability to evaluate the actual effectiveness it has on the patients through comparisons but allows for the actual evaluation of the timelines either before or after treatment as regards breast cancer.
The generalizability of the study’s findings is effective due to the universal nature of cancer but is limited by the limitation of the subject area to southeastern area. The generalizability of the study to the target population has ensured the external validity of the study. The application to practice has been stipulated with the focus on timelines, social and psychological interventions as well as the focus on support through the role of the oncology nurse. These implications are based on the nature of research but have the limitation of the context of application, lack of clear focus on the nurse in the study as well as the delivery modes used. The conclusion of the article is also well articulated with a summary of the article, implications and areas for further studies.
Conclusion
This paper has provided a critical analysis of the article “Transition from treatment to survivorship: Effects of a psychoeducational intervention on quality of life in Breast Cancer Survivors” by Meneses, McNees, Loerzel, Su, Zhang and Hassey (2007). The article provides valuable information regarding breast cancer although it has several limitations which need to be addressed to make it more credible.
Reference List
Institute of Medicine & National Research Council. (2006). From cancer patient to cancer survivor: Lost in transition. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
King, T., Kenny, P., Shiell, A., Hall, J., & Boyages, J. (2000). Quality of life three months and one year after first treatment for early stage breast cancer: Influence of treatment and patient characteristics. Quality of Life Research, 9, 789–800.
LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haberm J. (2010). Nursing Research: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice. St. Louis: Mosby.
Meneses, K., McNees, P., Loerzel, V., Su, X., Zhang, Y., & Hassey, L. (2007). Transition from treatment to survivorship: Effects of a psychoeducational intervention on quality of life in Breast Cancer Survivors. Oncology nursing forum, 34(5), 1007-1016.
Wyatt, G., Kurtz, M. E., & Liken, M. (1993). Breast cancer survivors: An exploration of quality of life issues. Cancer Nursing, 16, 440–448.