The details of the mentioned study were published in a nursing article in the tenth volume of the BMC Cancer Journal. One of the major problems that became apparent in the article was that the study problem was not explicitly stated in the study’s abstract, and it was not until in the later parts of the Background that the reader becomes aware of the study’s intent to analyze patient preferences on conservative palliative management (CPM) versus active and aggressive medical management (AAMM) in end-of-life care. In fact, only the study’s aims were mentioned, and the research problems as well as hypotheses were not clearly stated in the paper.
Nevertheless, the chosen topic in the study is very much significant in the field of nursing since it provides a medium for guaranteeing “Patient-Centered Care” (PCC), one of the primary advocacies of nursing (Mitchell, Bournes, & Hollett, 2006). Indeed, this emphasis on PCC served as among the basic justification for the study, and the highlighting of PCC was used as part of the basic conceptual framework of the study, albeit this framework was rather implied, and not explicitly stated. Still, the PCC framework was linked to the research purpose by serving as the primary motivation for the study and review of literature. In relation, most of the literature reviewed can be considered recent, with 90% of the studies cited conducted from 2000 to present. However, the remaining percentage involved older studies, with the oldest study dated 1984. Nevertheless, a strong point of the study is that its review of literature flowed logically and although it was brief, the literature review was able to adequately justify the need for the study.
In terms of methodology, another weak point of the study is in the fact that it failed to comprehensively discuss its study design. In fact, the research design was not mentioned at all in the study. Instead, the reader has to infer what possible design was utilized for