Developments in Health Sciences and Medical Field - Article Example

?Critical evaluation of a journal article Introduction Developments in health sciences and medical fields as well as in related academic shave evolved to demonstrate the importance of research in professional scopes. Evidence based practice has for instance used research to improve quality in service delivery in both medicine and health sciences. Similarly, research reports have become information banks towards identification of solutions to various problems. As a result, research is an important resource that requires knowledge and skills for a successful undertaking and presentation of results. This paper seeks to analyze a journal article. The paper will review elements of the article that includes introduction and aims, methods, design and hypothesis, results, and discussion and conclusion. Critical analysis of introduction and aims The introduction of a research report is one of its important elements and should be clearly identified by title. This section is similarly supposed to provide sufficient literature review on the research topic to cover preliminary information. Similarly, the introduction covers the article’s statement of research and includes research question and importance of the research besides clearly stating the research hypothesis (Gravetter and Torzano, 2011). The journal article, ‘Effectiveness of rehabilitation intervention in persons with multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial,’ as authored by Khan et al however inconsistently meets these characteristics. The article is identified with a number of shortcomings in the introductory part. The introduction is for example not titled. While the statement of research is shallowly covered, the introduction does not present hypothesis of the research. Similarly, the article’s literature review does not offer relevant background information to the research. While the aim of the research corresponds to the research title, the literature review offers little background information. It only discusses one similar research with limited exploration of its results and a link between the current research and the previously established information. The introduction is therefore not well presented in accordance with the norms of writing a research report (Khan et al, 2009; Jekel, et al, 2007). Critical analysis of methods, design, and hypothesis Hughes and Hayhoe explain that an effectively presented methodology section identifies the method used in the research. Further, the adopted research method must demonstrate compatibility with the research objectives and the research question. A conflict such as using a qualitative research method to test a hypothesis on existence of relationship between research variables therefore discredits the whole report. This is because of the conflict between test of hypothesis in research that falls within the scope of quantitative research and the adopted qualitative approach (Hughes and Hayhoe, 2007). The article’s method section, divided into “participants and settings,” “procedure”, “assessment interviews” and “treatment schedules” however fails to identify the adopted research method. This means that the research does not also relate its approach to its objectives. The article also fails to identify its data collection tools. Based on Hughes and Hayhoe’s concept of writing a research report, the methods section is supposed to state its data collection tools to identify application of instruments such as experiments or even surveys. While the procedure explains application of experiments, the authors failed to inform the reader of their adopted data collection instruments. The article however succeeds in illustrating its sample and the selection process of its participants. The sampling strategy is clearly stated, as randomized design, and its process explained (Khan et al, 2009; Jekel, et al, 2007). Though the article has no statement of hypothesis, its design was appropriate. The randomized approach, being flexible and applicable to many research scopes corresponded to the aims of the research. Similarly, the article demonstrates its research design that a reader can easily identify as experimental. The authors also sufficiently describes the participants in the research. This is achieved through identification of the geographical “source of the participants,” the total number of participants that were contacted for participation, the number that accepted to participate and stratification of the sample. The research also sufficiently identifies and communicates its approach and procedure for selecting its participants. Intervention measures are also fairly discussed in the article. These factors, according to Oermann and Hays, meet desirable characteristics of a research report (Oermann and Hays, 2010; Khan et al, 2009). The measurement section is also effectively presented and explains the methods and facilities that were employed in the data collection process. The authors for example explain their adopted measurement criteria. Statistical analysis section of the article is equally commendable as the authors explicitly discuss their data analysis approach. The section includes the adopted statistical tools, analysis of variance, multivariate analysis of variance, and student t-test, in the analysis of collected information and details of the applied statistical concepts such as the level of significance. The article’s methodology therefore had both shortcomings and success (Oermann and Hays, 2010; Khan et al, 2009). Critical analysis of results and presentation A successful presentation of results of a research, according to Oermann and Hays, includes the discovered evidence in the research. The researcher should be able to identify and communicate new findings in the area and must relate the results to the research objectives. Some of the essential elements of a good result section in a research report include a priority to major observations, precision in presentation, application of tables for clarity as well as simultaneous presentation of data with their corresponding analysis. Application of sub titles in the results section also improves its quality of presentation (Oermann and Hays, 2010). The article’s result section is properly organized and presented with subheadings. While the objective of the research was to determine effectiveness of rehabilitation, the result section begins with findings on participants and not findings on effectiveness of rehabilitation. As a result, the main research findings are not given preference in the research section. The main findings are also not conspicuous for direct identification by readers. The section also lacks precision as the findings are absorbed in explanation of procedures. Application of a table in the section however enhanced effectiveness of presentation of the results (Oermann and Hays, 2010; Khan et al, 2009; Herbert et al., 2011). Critical analysis of logic and validity of discussion and conclusion The article’s discussion reviews the results and relates them to the objective of the research as well as the literature review. It identifies effectiveness of rehabilitation on sclerosis based on the difference between the treatment experiment and the control experiments. The discussion further relays a relationship between the research’s observation and previously established findings. This demonstrates reliability and validity of the research because of its consistency with past observations. Similarly, the article is logical in explaining the observed difference in the level of effectiveness of rehabilitation between its observations and those of previous research. The discussion also explains observations in the results and identifies limitations such as inability to compare the results with previous observations. The article’s conclusion, however brief, identifies with the research objective of determining effectiveness of rehabilitation intervention in people with sclerosis and recommends further research into solution of unanswered questions. As a result, the discussion section is effective in relating the results of the research with the research objective. Effectiveness of the discussion is also identified by the weight that it puts on the objective as it starts by responding to the objective statement (Oermann and Hays, 2010; Khan et al, 2009). Conclusion Analysis of sections of the articles identifies both negative and positive aspects. While the introduction is poorly presented and even lacks its title, sections such as discussion and conclusion are effectively presented. The methods and results sections however have a mixture of both positive and negative aspects with more negative elements than positive ones. Quality in presentation of the article therefore improves with its length. References Gravetter, F. and Torzano, L. (2011). Research Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning Herbert, R., Jamtvedt, G., Hagen, K. and Mead, J. (2011). Practical Evidence-Based Physiotherapy. London, UK: Elsevier Health Sciences Hughes, M. and Hayhoe, G. (2007). A Research Primer for Technical Communication: Methods, Exemplars, and Analyses. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Jekel, J., Katz, D., Elmore, J., and Wild, David. (2007). Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Preventive Medicine (E-Rental - No Student Consult Access). Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Health Sciences Khan, F., Pallant, J., Brand, C. and Kilpatrick, T. (2009). “Effectiveness of rehabilitation intervention in persons with multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial.” Retrieved from: http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/79/11/1230.full.pdf Oermann, M. and Hays, J. (2010). Writing for Publication in Nursing. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company Read More