Critical Appraisal
The selected research article used a quantitative research approach and a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design to assess the effectiveness of an early two-session cognitive intervention in a sample of 108 children (2 to 16-years-old) who had experienced road traffic accidents and burns. The study hypothesized that “children receiving the intervention would report fewer PTSD symptoms and behavioral problems 3 and 6 months post-injury, compared to children given standard medical treatment” (Kramer & Landolt, 2014, p. 2). The study objective and hypothesis, in my view, are well developed since they identify the five components needed under the PICOT framework. These components include the population (children, aged between 2 and 16 years), intervention (early two-session cognitive intervention), comparison (children who received the intervention and those receiving standard medical treatment), outcome (reduction in PTSD symptoms and behavioral problems), and time-frame (3 and 6 months post-injury).
In research methods, it is important to note that the RCT design employed by the researchers was effective in testing the stated hypothesis due to its capacity to allow for a meticulous assessment of a single variable, in this case evaluating the effectiveness of the two-session cognitive intervention on the selected sample. Additionally, the study methods used by the researchers (e.g., ensuring that all participants met the identified criteria for participation, using control and experimental groups to note the effects of the intervention, random allocation of participants to the two groups, and assessing noted risk factors to ensure that the two groups were broadly similar) addressed the key potential sources of bias, hence ensuring that the findings could be generalized to a larger setting. However, because most RCTs rely on large sample sizes to have a high chance of detecting a worthwhile intervention effect if it indeed exists (Creswell, 2013), it could be argued that the sample of 108 children used in this study may not have triggered the desired study outcomes bearing in mind that 19 of the participants dropped out of the study.
The study used appropriate statistical tests that could establish the relationship between the provided intervention and the desired study outcomes. The presentation of the main study findings was done in a clear and precise manner, with the researchers making use of descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to analyze participants’ data concerning the group to which they had been randomly allocated. No conflict of interest was noted in this study, meaning that no personal interests influenced the professional roles or responsibilities of the two researchers. Lastly, although no significant intervention effects were discovered in this study (possibly due to the small sample size), clinicians operating in contemporary settings might still want to consider offering psychoeducation and training in coping skills for children who have experienced road traffic accidents and burns.
Public Health Functions
The most important public health functions, in my view, include identifying the determinants of health and health inequalities within communities, conducting epidemiological research studies to identify the incidence and/or prevalence of diseases affecting communities across time and space with the view to ensuring the best health for the greatest number, as well as treating disease. These functions are justified based on the centrality of public health in ensuring the health and wellbeing of communities and societies. When the public health sector of a country fails, whole communities are at a greater risk of suffering from health-related complications and disease, hence the justification.
References
Creswell, J.W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Kramer, D.N., & Landolt, M.A. (2014). Early psychological intervention in accidentally injured children ages 2-16: A randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5(2), 1-13. Web.