Introduction
The prevalence of falls among seniors is a severe issue that requires specific consideration and new solutions. An article by Chidume (2021) is an example of recent research on the topic, so it may be interesting to review it and learn whether it is well-written. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to explore and evaluate various components of the article in question and identify its strengths and weaknesses.
Problem and Significance
One of the main parts of almost all research papers is the identification of the specific problem and argument for the study. In their article, Chidume (2021) raises the issue of the high prevalence of falls in the older population. According to statistics, “in 2017, unintentional falls in persons age 65 and older were the leading cause of nonfatal injuries in the United States (US), accounting for 63.3% of the total number of unintentional falls” (Chidume, 2021, p. 1). The author believes that a fall prevention toolkit (FPT) can reduce the number of falls and improve seniors’ awareness of fall prevention and safety (Chidume, 2021). Since there is a lack of useful and effective techniques that would help solve the issue, it is evident that the study’s results will contribute greatly to the healthcare practice. As a result, it is possible to say that in the article in question, there is a clearly stated problem, a cognizant argument, and an evident significance to nursing.
Question/ Hypothesis
Overall, the article’s purpose is formally stated, so one can clearly understand the author’s intention. Chidume (2021) aims to “implement a fall prevention toolkit (FPT) to older adults that attended mobile IPE community clinics” “to reduce falls and increase older adult knowledge” (p. 2). Further, although it is possible to understand that the research question most likely relates to whether such interventions can improve health outcomes, no questions are clearly listed in the article. Similarly, it is not possible to find a formulated hypothesis, while it probably refers to the suggestion that FPT can actually provide a positive difference to the nursing practice; no variables are identified in the paper (Chidume, 2021). One may determine that the article’s independent variable is the education program, while the dependent variable is the number of falls among older adults. Therefore, although one can get an understanding of the author’s intentions, it would be more informative to distinctly formulate the research questions.
Literature Review
Overall, the literature review definitely represents major studies on the topic. Chidume (2021) provides a wide range of various resources and uses the information outlined in them to support their own suggestions and findings. There is a great number of peer-reviewed articles, government reports and statistics, and other credible sources cited by Chidume (2021). The author includes recent (2018 and 2019), outdated (older than ten years), primary, and secondary articles because they all contain relevant information that helps Chidume (2021) build their argument. Further, as for the structure of the paper, one may notice that it is well-organized and logically presented. Navigation is easy due to the inclusion of headings and subheadings, while several tables allow a better perception of the findings.
When reviewing the available literature, the author mostly summarizes findings from previous works and uses each academic paper to support others and their own claim. Studies are not compared or contrasted, but Chidume (2021) can sometimes indicate that a particular article is newer and includes more relevant data. Then, it is possible to state that the review is rather objective, and there is no personal bias introduced by Chidume (2021). The author simply summarizes the articles and uses them to show that their own concern is evidence-based. Consequently, the need for the study is supported by the literature review because numerous researchers consider fall prevalence to be quite disturbing and requiring new solutions.
Theoretical and/or Conceptual Framework
Unlike research questions and hypotheses, an explicit theoretical framework is outlined in the study. As noticed by the researcher, they selected Boykin and Schoenhofer’s Nursing as Caring Theory to develop and present various parts of the study (Chidume, 2021). Overall, “this grand theory is an in-depth analysis of what caring is, how caring has multiple meanings, and how caring affects everyone differently,” so these are the framework’s key features (Chidume, 2021, p. 2). There are several ways the theory’s tenets relate to an FPT’s implementation in the elderly population, and this framework applies greatly because the selected population is the focus.
Research Methods
Further, it is essential to discuss the research methods selected by the author. Overall, Chidume (2021) conducted a quasi-experiment, which is a research design that does not include randomization (Child Care & Early Education Research Connections, n.d.). It is possible to say that the research method is clearly identified by the article’s author because they mention that the project uses “quantitative pretest-posttests and an open-ended participant feedback survey” (Chidume, 2021, p. 1). Intervention is also used, and the researcher dedicates a separate sub-section to describe it in detail. Noticeably, this description involves not only the intervention itself but also the preparation phase, such as how participants learned about the experiment and were selected.
Finally, one should indicate that the selected research method is quite appropriate for answering the research question and assessing whether the intervention is effective. As stated by Choueiry (2022), “pretest-posttest design is a type of quasi-experiment in which the outcome of interest is measured 2 times: once before and once after exposing a non-random group of participants to a certain intervention” (para. 1). Precisely this research design is considered to be efficient and helpful in medical experiments and assessments of newly introduced ways to solve a healthcare issue.
Setting/Sample
Since this is a quasi-experiment, it is required to discuss the setting and sample, and both these points are clearly described in the article. First of all, the experiment was conducted in “various community settings in Lee County, Alabama and surrounding counties,” in the “mobile IPE community clinics” (Chidume, 2021, p. 3). There were thirty participants, and the author mentions several characteristics that define them. There were 26.6% men and 73.3% women, participants lived in assisted living facilities, low-income households, or independently in the community, and some had physical disabilities (Chidume, 2021, p. 3). To attract interested individuals, the project was advertised on clinical sites prior to the implementation, and some participants were recruited personally. It is stated that, initially, there were thirty-three participants, but researchers failed to contact three of them. While no exclusion criteria are mentioned, Chidume (2021) outlines some inclusion criteria. Persons selected needed to be 65 or older and speak English; they could be of any gender and race.
The sample size is extremely important in research, and it is always required to make sure that saturation is reached. The author does not provide a rationale for selecting precisely 30 participants, and this sample size is possibly not large enough to produce credible results. According to Andrade (2020), a greater number would be more relevant because the greater the population is, the bigger the sample should be to draw trustworthy conclusions. Finally, since the sample represents a larger population, the research’s results are generalizable. Chidume (2021) tries to prevent seniors from falls and their negative consequences, as well as spread awareness. Therefore, the results are applicable to all older adults, and the benefit of the study is significant.
Data Collection
Further, it is necessary to discuss how the author describes data collection procedures. It is identified that data was collected using longitudinal methods, and Chidume (2021) explains in detail all the instruments they used. For example, the first tool was the Missouri Alliance for Home Care 10-question survey (MAHC-10), which “is multifactorial, standardized, and has been validated as a single tool to assess fall risks” (Chidume, 2021, p. 3). Then, some components of the CDC’s initiative were used for data collection, and finally, a five-question follow-up survey was also utilized.
Overall, it becomes evident that the data collection tools used in the project were rather effective and allowed for getting the required information. The author reports the reliability and validity of all surveys and tools, which is quite valuable (Chidume, 2021). It is stated that data was collected and transported by the nurse, but the researcher does not indicate whether the nurse was specifically trained to work with the identified methods (Chidume, 2021). The same nurse then evaluated the data “using descriptive statistics and parametric analysis (interviews and questionnaires)” (Chidume, 2021, p. 4). Generally, it is possible to say that the selected data collection methods are appropriate for the study because, according to researchers for Grand Canyon University (2021), precisely interviews and surveys are the best tools for quantitative studies. Therefore, no significant weaknesses or disadvantages in data collection are found.
Ethical Considerations
One may say that the research under question can be considered ethical because the author protected the rights of human subjects. Overall, according to Chidume (2021), the privacy of participants was protected during the interviews and surveys. They “were given a copy of the informed consent for reference and contact information for the nurse and Institutional Review Boards in case there were questions or concerns after the intervention” (Chidume, 2021, p. 3). There was the anonymity of participation, and participants were supported during each phase of the experiment.
Results and Statistical Measures
Generally, the descriptive statistics in the report sufficiently describe the major key variables and background characteristics of the sample. As for the key variables, they are the prevalence of falls among the sample and the impact of education. Background characteristics of the participants included, for example, the number of falls they experienced during three months prior to the intervention (Chidume, 2021). The author does not identify additional statistical tests used in their study and never discusses how they controlled for confounding variables.
At the same time, it is possible to say that the chosen statistical tests were appropriate for use in the study. Chidume (2021) analyzed the data with the help of SPSS Version 24, and the tests included a comparison of MAHC-10 scores, “Stay Independent” scores, as well as MAHC-10 and “Stay Independent” paired t-tests. While there is no rationale for using these tests, it is evident that they are appropriate because they allow for a clear identification of whether the intervention appeared to be effective. Both significant and non-significant results are reported by the author, and the statistical findings are presented clearly and logically in two tables with good titles and labeled column headings.
Discussion
It is quite valuable that limitations are addressed in the study because one can consider them when assessing the research’s significance. According to Chidume (2021), some limitations included the inability to conduct the experiment in a larger area and a lack of time, resources, and additional interventions. Generally, the findings are related both to the research question and previous studies. The author supports recommendations provided by previous researchers by highlighting the need to combine various instruments to achieve better results and draws logical conclusions (Chidume, 2021). The value of this project is still emphasized: for example, “the Auburn University IPE program observed the benefit of the FPE and are considering implementing their own fall prevention initiative, possibly using components of this project” (Chidume, 2021, p. 5). This research adds to the existing knowledge by highlighting what is needed to be achieved in future experiments to have more positive results.
Conclusion
This paper should be of great help for future nursing research because specific recommendations are made. For instance, Chidume (2021) emphasizes the need to have more time and financial resources and consider that some participants are from low-income households. It is also recommended to note that there are days when turnout is low due to bad weather or personal beliefs (such as fear of Friday the 13th), as well as prepare more effective combinations of instruments. There are no important implications that the report neglected to include.
Critique Conclusion
First of all, it is essential to discuss the strengths of the article. It is possible to say that it is well-written and well-structured, and the author explores a significant issue and draws conclusions that may inform future research. All the necessary components, discussions, and statements are outlined, and limitations and disadvantages are highlighted. It is impossible to identify any major points or implications that the author fails to address.
Next, it is valuable to notice that the article still has some weaknesses. For instance, there are no clearly formulated research questions and hypotheses, which requires readers to identify them themselves. Then, basic information about sampling is found in various parts of the paper – thus, the fact that the initial number of participants was thirty-three is mentioned in later paragraphs. Finally, it would be better to outline how the nurse was trained to work with the selected data collection tools.
I found this critique process to be quite informative and valuable in relation to how studies should be written. It is always beneficial to assess other papers’ strengths and weaknesses and explore what could have been improved in an article. In my future research, I will pay increased attention to the proper formulation of research questions and hypotheses, remember to address all the necessary points, and try to conduct similar analyses when finishing my articles to improve them before publishing.
To draw a conclusion, it is essential to highlight the value and significance of the report in question. The article by Chidume (2021) is a good example of a research paper because the author clearly explained the rationale for the study, data collection and analysis methods, implications, limitations, and other components. Wherefore, while some improvements would be required, it is possible to consider this study informative and exemplary.
References
Andrade, C. (2020). Sample size and its importance in research. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 42(1), 102–103. Web.
Chidume, T. (2021). Promoting older adult fall prevention education and awareness in a community setting: A nurse-led intervention. Applied Nursing Research, 57, 151392, 1-7.
Child Care & Early Education Research Connections. (n.d.). Experiments and quasi-experiments. Web.
Choueiry, G. (2022). One-group pretest-posttest design: An introduction. Quantifying Health. Web.
Grand Canyon University. (2021). The most effective quantitative data collection methods. Web.