Introduction
The prevention and treatment of hepatitis C are major public health concerns because many ignore the symptoms and avoid therapeutic recommendations. According to Lee et al. (2020), ignoring Hepatitis C symptoms and avoiding therapeutic recommendations resulted in an acute state despite the disease being curable. Some studies have identified people with chronic immune problems as the most vulnerable to hepatitis C contamination (Koniares et al., 2020).
For example, pregnant women, children, the elderly, and people who have had liver transplants are among the most vulnerable groups (Koniares et al., 2020). Regular Hepatitis C screening can reduce the number of individuals with a chronic liver infection due to ignorance. In addition, routine screening may influence the overall efficacy of hepatitis C treatment. Universal screening can protect vulnerable groups from hepatitis C, promote timely infection diagnosis, and facilitate effective treatment plans.
PICOT Question: Compared to no screening, does obligatory screening for hepatitis C increase the timely diagnosis of the infection within 12 months in patients with immunity problems?
Background of the Studies
The section analyzes the problem statement, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research question of two quantitative studies. Koniares et al. (2020) study sought to determine whether universal Hepatitis C screening in pregnant women is more effective than risk-based screening. So, the study asks whether risk-based screening is as effective as universal screening. It is relevant to nursing research because it focuses on screening pregnant women who belong to the vulnerable patient group at high risk of hepatitis C contamination.
The second study evaluates the effectiveness of screening for hepatitis C among populations with immunity problems. Lee et al. (2020) intended to determine if community-based screening for hepatitis C among drug addicts can reduce the spread of infection. Therefore, the study asked whether a Hepatitis C screening test is necessary among drug addicts. Because drug addicts are among those with immune deficiencies, the study’s goal is consistent with nursing research.
How the Two Studies Support the Nursing Practice Problem
The two articles are relevant to my PICOT question because they investigate Hepatitis C virus infection among vulnerable groups. For instance, Koniares et al. (2020) focused on screening pregnant women who belong to vulnerable patients with high risks of contamination with hepatitis C. The study intervention identifies critical areas where healthcare providers are inconsistent in identifying risk factors for hepatitis C virus infection. Similarly, Lee et al. (2020) evaluated the effectiveness of screening for hepatitis C among populations with immunity problems. Since screening in high-risk settings identified a substantial hepatitis C burden and the significance of reflex testing, it reinforces my research PICOT question. The study intervention that recommends hepatitis C screening to be conducted in at-risk younger groups in drug treatment centers also answers my research question.
Methods of the Studies
The two studies used different methodologies to assess hepatitis C virus screening practices in high-endemic populations. Koniares et al. (2020) used the survey method, whereas Lee et al. (2020) used the experimental method. A 10-question electronic survey was sent to residents and attending physicians who provide obstetrical care (Koniares et al., 2020). The experimental research was conducted between 2016 and 2018 in shelters, drug treatment centers, and Federally Qualified Health Centers that engaged in the screening. It took a coordinator to help people confirm their viremia and connect with substance abuse treatment or primary care providers who prescribe hepatitis C medication (Lee et al., 2020). The experiment results from all stations were analyzed to determine the efficacy of screening in high-risk settings.
Surveys have a high level of general capability in representing a large population. Data collected via the survey method provide a more accurate description of the relative characteristics of the study population (Nayak & Narayan, 2019). Nevertheless, it is possible to use inappropriate questions in surveys because of the need to accommodate everyone. An experimental research method is more accurate because it allows for a high degree of control. For example, researchers can isolate specific variables with this method, making it possible to make a precise conclusion or determine if a potential outcome is viable. However, experiment results are highly subjective due to the possibility of human error. Any error, whether systematic or random, would render the results invalid.
Results of the Studies
The study finding shows a strong correlation between screening and Hepatitis C detection in vulnerable groups. For instance, the Koniares et al. (2020) survey showed that risk-based screening for the Hepatitis C virus might be less effective than universal screening because healthcare providers are inconsistent in identifying risk factors. Universal screening might reduce the number of Hepatitis C virus infections that go undetected during pregnancy. The finding is crucial in nursing practice because it provides valuable information on the need for universal screening for pregnant women.
The second study evaluated the effectiveness of community-based test programs for people at drug treatment centers. Results indicated that drug addicts are high-risk and should be tested for Hepatitis C on visiting healthcare facilities (Lee et al., 2020). The results raised awareness in nursing practice about the importance of focusing on high-risk groups (drug users), typically ignored by public health. Nurses should keep these vulnerable patients in mind as they strive to create a society free of Hepatitis C.
Ethical Considerations
Getting approval for your study is one example of ethical consideration in any research involving data collection with people. Review boards or other responsible authorities must determine if the research goals and design are ethical or follow your institution’s code of conduct. Koniares et al. (2020) followed this guideline by submitting their proposal to the Tufts Medical Center Institutional Review Board for approval. Similarly, Lee et al. (2020) presented their study for approval by the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) review board. These studies followed the correct procedure in seeking permission from the appropriate authorities.
Voluntary participation is another ethical consideration that is crucial in research involving subjects. Research subjects are free to choose to participate without any pressure or coercion (Kaewkungwal & Adams, 2019). Lee et al. (2020) required frontline workers to inform patients that free and confidential HCV antibody testing would be administered unless they declined. Similarly, Koniares et al. (2020) emailed the surveys to residents and attending physicians based on mutual consent. Therefore, participants in both studies were aware of their rights to withdraw or continue participation.
Conclusion
Ignoring the symptoms of Hepatitis C and ignoring therapeutic recommendations will always result in an acute state of the virus infection. Those at risk for Hepatitis C infections include pregnant women, children, the elderly, and those who have received a liver transplant. Lee et al. (2020) and Koniares et al. (2020) evaluated the efficacy of universal Hepatitis C screening among drug addicts and pregnant women, respectively. The findings suggest that regular Hepatitis C screening increases the detection of virus infections that go undetected during pregnancy or among drug addicts. The studies identify critical areas in which providers are inconsistent in identifying risk factors and crucial information for nursing practice. In addition, both studies adhere to ethical considerations, such as obtaining approval from the appropriate authorities and the subjects’ informed consent.
References
Kaewkungwal, J., & Adams, P. (2019). Ethical consideration of the research proposal and the informed-consent process: An online survey of researchers and ethics committee members in Thailand. Accountability in Research, 26(3), 176-197. Web.
Koniares, K., Fadlallah, H., Kolettis, D., & Vindenes, T. (2020). Hepatitis C virus screening in pregnancy. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM, 2(3), 100-123. Web.
Lee, A., Karumberia, S., Gilmore, A., Williams, E., Bruner, N., Overton, E., Saag, M, & Franco, R. (2020). Hepatitis C among high-risk Alabamians: Disease burden and screening effectiveness. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 222(5), 365-375. Web.
Nayak, M., & Narayan, K. (2019). Strengths and weaknesses of online surveys. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 24(5), 31-38. Web.