Introduction
The focus of this paper is to present an academic critique of an article written by Ann Johansen, Maria Petrisko, and Eileen Chansen. The article is titled “Adolescent Sleep and the Impact of technology use before sleep on Daytime Function.” The article was published in the Journal of Pediatric Nursing in May 2016. The critique will focus on the various sections of the article, where the strengths and weaknesses of each are outlined and discussed.
Title and Abstract
The title of the article excellently reflects the essence of the research. This is because the title explains everything that Johansen et al. (2016) hope to achieve. In other words, the title indicates that the scholars will be exploring how using technology before sleep affects the daytime function of an individual. The abstract has presented a perfect summary of the article. It has been organized into five sections: purpose, methods, results, conclusion, and practical implications. Only the discussion section has been left out of this organization, but the conclusion has summarized what could have appeared in a discussion section. The chronological order of these sections makes it possible to highlight all key areas of the article.
The abstract presents a sense of the importance of the problem area, especially through the purpose and practical implication sections. These two sections indicate the pervasiveness of technology in culture and explain why the topic is necessary. Most important, the abstract illustrates why it is important to address the problem. The research problem is placed within a larger framework, which is the relationship between technology and healthcare. Lastly, the main strength of the abstract is its ability to capture the essence of the study. The weakness can be observed in the failure to offer a more elaborate description of the research problem.
Background
The introduction section has offered a clear and precise overview of the problem. The problem can be summarized by the opening sentence of the fourth paragraph. Johansen et al. (2016) state that insufficient sleep among adolescents causes negative psychological consequences, including high obesity risks and metabolic dysfunction. Other dangers of insufficient sleep are increased risk of anxiety, depression, suicidal intentions, drug and alcohol use, mood disturbances, and behavioral and psychological consequences. Additionally, the statement of the problem extends to cover why and how adolescents may lack sufficient sleep and link the use of technology to sleep deprivation. The significance and relevance are not expressly stated, but Johansen et al. (2016) explain why sleep deprivation is critical, especially since the role of technology remained unclear. Additionally, the relationship between insufficient sleep and health outcomes is the conceptual model of the study. Therefore, it can be argued that technology becomes the independent variable while sleep deprivation and its health consequences are the dependent variables.
The article does not have a literature review section to follow the introduction. Therefore, only a brief overview of the problem appears in the introduction section. The justification for the need for the study can be found in the expression that the role of technology was unclear in its relationship with sleep deprivation. Literature of what is known appears in the description of the dangers of insufficient sleep, which means that the major contribution of this study was to include technology in the research topic. Lastly, the research questions have not been stated, which means only the purpose is highlighted. The key concepts are sleep regulation processes, including the homeostatic and circadian processes. The intersection between these processes determines the wake time (Borbely, et al., 2016). Sleep quality is another major concept, which is described in terms of the number of hours adolescents need to sleep.
Methodology
The first section in the methodology described a parent study and sampling methodology. The National Sleep Foundation conducted a poll in America in 2011 and developed a cross-sectional survey of a nationally representative, random sample comprising 150 individuals between 13 and 64 years. In a parent study, Johansen et al. (2016) describe how data was collected, including telephone calls (n=750) and internet (n=758) surveys, where the respondents were randomly selected through random digit dialing. A subsample of 255 adolescents was used since the purpose of the study was to explore sleep through adolescence. In this case, two groups were used comprising younger adolescents of 13-17 years (n=140) and older adolescents aged 18-21 years (n=118). The survey comprised questions derived from Epworth Sleepiness Scale and a validated 8-item self-report questionnaire. Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted to characterize the respondents, frequency of technology use, and weekday sleep habits. Comparisons across the demographics were achieved through t-tests.
The study design is only visible while exploring the methods since it is not expressly stated. The sampling is conveniently stated and highlighted. Additionally, the large sample size is considered representative of the population of interest, especially due to the random sampling technique. The sample size can suitably answer the research question, and questionnaires are among the most convenient data collection tools. The internal and external validity of the study design is not discussed, as well as the reliability. However, it can be argued that the data analysis plan has described what variables are measured. Additionally, the statistical tools are appropriate since they help make sense of the data and answer the research questions. Equipment and materials have been effectively described, including the questionnaire and measurement scales. The procedures followed have been described in a manner that would allow replication of the study possible.
Conducting studies that use human subjects requires scholars to protect the respondents. In this case, Johansen et al. (2016) have not described human subjects’ protection since it only states that the study was approved by the institutional review board of the University of Pittsburgh. However, it can be argued that the data was not collected directly from the respondents since the study used secondary data from the parent study described above. The use of this data was approved, which means that the researchers did not have to worry about informed consent or the ethical rights of the subjects.
Results
The researchers found that the sample used was well-balanced along the gender lines. In other words, the adolescent subsample comprised 52% of males and females forming the rest part of the sample. The demographic characteristics are described using descriptive statistics as illustrated in Table 1 of the article. The second variable is the sleep deprivation patterns, which are summarized in Table 2. In this case, Johansen et al. (2016) found that the mean sleep duration was 7.3 hours with a deviation of 1.3 hours. The average sleep duration was observed to steadily drop from 8.3 hours at the age of 13 to 6.7 hours at 19 years. A spike at age 17 was observed where the sleep duration was recorded at 7.4 hours. Other findings include that a significant number of respondents went to bed late and that most took longer to fall asleep. Excessive daytime sleepiness was reported by 20% of the respondents, which was followed by similar observations in daytime functioning. Technology use at bedtime was a virtually universal phenomenon, where 97% of the respondent agreed to have used some form of technology.
The organization, presentation, and clarity of the findings are exemplary since the scholars begin with the basic observations and then proceed to explain. The findings are detailed, which means that the statistical findings are complete and accurate, as well as self-explanatory. The use of tables makes it possible to summarize the major observations. As mentioned earlier, descriptive statistics have been used majorly to present patient characteristics. Therefore, gender, age, and race are all effectively outlined in the findings section. Overall, it can be observed that the findings have addressed the research concerns, especially since the results have been organized chronologically. In other words, the demographic characteristics are followed by the measurement across other variables that were measured, including technology use and sleep deprivation characteristics.
Conclusion
The discussion section has summarized the findings and connected the key observation to the theory and claims made in the introduction. Therefore, Johansen et al. (2016) have answered the research question by illustrating how vital sleep is for optimal mental and physical health, memory, growth, learning, and peak performance among children. Additionally, the discussion section confirms the claim that adolescents sleep fewer hours than recommended due to the use of technology. The research purpose was to determine how technology affects sleep, and the discussion section shows that the data and statistical analysis reveal the relationship between these variables. All the statements made in the discussion sections have been based on or supported by the data and results in the findings section. For example, Johansen et al. (2016) find that adolescents between 13 and 21 years sleep approximately an hour or more below the recommended duration. This observation is reflected in the secondary data analyzed in the research.
The consistency with previous research is manifested through the various studies cited in the discussion section. For example, such scholars as Wolfson and Carkson (1998) have been cited as having made similar observations regarding sleep patterns. Regarding technology use, past studies confirm the data on the parent study, especially on the observation that adolescents used technology devices within an hour before bed (Hysing et al., 2015). Therefore, the current study supports past data on the subject and makes additions regarding the patterns observed and the expected implications for nursing.
The discussion section described the contributions of the study by expressing that it asked questions about participants’ daytime routines, which were not reflected in the parent study. Additionally, a limitations section described the issues affecting the generalization of the findings, including the fairly small sample of adolescents between the ages of 13 and 21 years. Additionally, the scholars identified a weakness in the form of a lack of objective evaluation of sleep of technology use. Lastly, recommendations for further study have not been outlined, since the conclusion section only states the major suggestions made by the study.
References
Borbely, A., Daan, S., Wirz-Justice, A., & Deboer, T. (2016). The two-process model of sleep regulation: A reappraisal.Journal of Sleep Research, 25(2), 131-143.
Hysing, M., Pallesen, S., Stormark, K., Jakobsen, R., Lundervold, A., & Sivertsen, B. (2015). Sleep and use of electronic devices in adolescence: results from a large population-based study.BMJ Open, 5(1), 1-7.
Johansen, A., Petrisko, M., & Chansens, E. (2016). Adolescent sleep and the impact of technology use before sleep on daytime function. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 31(5), 498-504.
Wolfson, A., & Carkson, M. (1998). Sleep schedules and daytime functioning in adolescents.Child Development, 69(4), 875-887.