Methodology of Health Researches - Assignment Example

? Research Analysis: A Closer Look at the Methodology of Two Different Health Research Studies of the College) This paper will analyze the methodologies of the two different health studies by looking at the research designs, variables, interventions, and timeframes and timing along with its corresponding rationales as well as the differences in methods used by the authors. The analysis suggests that the two articles provided limitations on the selection of sample size, duration and demographic locations. However, the studies vary accordingly in the design, interventions, methods used to control confounding variables, and timeframes. This paper examines two health researches to point out that researches though, similar in type of industry being studied upon, does not always mean that the studies will utilize similar research methods and that appropriate methods should be a huge consideration to be able to study in depth the external and internal validities of such studies. Keywords: analyze, methodologies, research design, variables, interventions, timeframes, rationale, external and internal validity Research Analysis: A Closer Look at the Methodology of Two Different Health Research Studies Research studies were conducted to determine the cause and effect relationship of each independent variable to its corresponding dependent variables. The aim of these studies is to generate conclusions on the relevance of a certain variable to the samples and to provide evidenced based decision making on the issue at hand (“Study Design”, n.d.). To further analyze the similarities and differences of the methodologies used in the two different health research studies, this paper will look at the research designs, variables, interventions, and timeframes and timing along with its corresponding rationales in methods section of each article as used by the authors. In the study conducted by Britz, & Dunn (2010), they had used descriptive, correlation study among heart failure, self - care deficit patients age 18 and above and just recently hospitalized. The article aims to determine the relationship between patients with the above descriptions and their quality of life. Instruments used during the study were demographic data and clinical data of patients, SCHFI scale a 22-item questionnaire that measures heart failure self-care and MLHF questionnaire that is developed to evaluate the quality of life specifically for heart failure patients. Alpha coefficients used for the study are 0.76 for heart failure self-care and 0.94 for quality of life. Data collection was done by soliciting the approval of the physician and the patients to avoid future ethical problems and the interview process thereafter. Data analysis used was descriptive statistics using SPSS base 16.0 software and considering frequencies, means and reliability estimates as well as bivariate correlations as measurements. The purpose of the study is to determine if there are any statistically significant relationships between heart failure, self-care deficits and quality of life among recently hospitalized heart failure patients. The above study showed that there was a clear link between the research purpose which was to determine if there were any statistically significant relationships between self-care and quality of life among recently hospitalized heart failure patients and the study design used which was non- experimental such that the study does not involve a control group but refers only to the cross-section sample of the population (“Evaluation Design”, n.d.). The link can also be inferred by the use of interview process to obtain the data and by the method of analysis which was through the use of descriptive statistics and the social statistics software (SPSS). The intervention in the study was provided for by the inclusion and exclusion criterion that was well defined in the methodology section. The rationale for the inclusion and exclusion criteria to be well defined in the study is to provide the limitation to the sample size and eliminate possible bias and extraneous variables. However, with the independent variable that is the patients with heart failure and given the dependent variables as self-care and quality of life, the inclusion of ability to read, write and understand English may be considered as extraneous variables as they may not be so relevant in the conduct of the study. It is important to note that in non-experimental study design, the use of instruments are necessary and the conduct maybe more likely to be an interview process (“Evaluation Design”, n.d.). By that the data collection may mean that they though the patients lack such abilities, they can also be considered as a possible respondent and may have affected the results of the study in a different manner. As it was, the study has no or negligible confounding variables since it have a non –experimental design and used the non-probability sampling and not randomized sampling method. In this sampling method, the sample population was selected because they satisfy the population requirements of the researchers and they can already provide more or less the information’s needed in the study to come up with a generalized conclusion on the subject matter even without considering other sample populations and since it was generally conducted through the use of interview instruments, hence considered and indicated in the study as convenience sampling method (“Study Design”, n.d.). The relative timing of data collection as indicated in the research is cross-sectional in which it assesses the quality of life of heart failure self –care patients taking into consideration a cross section of the identified sample population that aims to provide generalization on the issue at hand (“Study Design”, n.d.). On the other hand, the study conducted by Kramer, Richards, Thompson, Harper, & Fairchok in 2008 was designed as a randomized, prospective, double-blinded, placebo controlled trial that aims to compare the efficacy of acetaminophen to acetaminophen alternated with ibuprofen in children. The sample population used was healthy children aged 6 months to 6 years admitted to the Pediatric Clinic of the Madigan Army Medical Center (MAMC) from January of 2004 and the same month of 2006. The study utilizes enrollment by parents/caretakers procedure to come up with the sample size of 38 and is grouped by treatment A or B accordingly through randomization. Data collection was done by collecting the records of the parents/caretakers, stored in excel and analyzed using Stat View 4.57 software. The descriptive analysis was used to convey the demographic data and Univariate analyses to assess the temperature differences and perception of efficacy. The link between the study design and the purpose was evident in such a way that the efficacy of the use of different medicine formulation in children was sought to estimate the like hood of an event to happen or foresee the possible issues/challenges that the dependent variable might take on the course of the study which was as it is the definition of prospective study design (“Study Design”, n.d.). It can also be noted that the use of random sampling method to come up with the sample population is done in the study to determine relationship between the variables identified in the study. The independent variable used was the healthy children aged 6 months to 6 years with chief complaint of > 380C fever and the dependent variables used was the antipyretic efficacy of acetaminophen and the antipyretic efficacy of acetaminophen alternated with ibuprofen. Given these variables, the interventions used in this study do not only include the use of inclusion and exclusion criterion but also the use of double blinding and placebo controlled trial. The interventions used were described briefly in the study and the article did not provide any evidence as to what was the reason behind the blinding technique. The use of these interventions may be to source out all the possible effects that the study can generate within the acceptable level of errors. Similarly, it can be inferred that blinding was done in this study, wherein the parents/caretakers and investigators were blinded and with the study pharmacists as the unblended person, as a necessary factor for it may facilitate the conduct of the treatments without bias among the parents/caretakers in administering the medicines and to eliminate the possible sources of errors such as response rate of the parent/caretaker and the investigators to relative to the conduct and results of the study (“Study Design”, n.d.). There were no inherent potential extraneous variables used in the study since it was assumed that the interventions were almost similar relative to the characteristics of the groups. Randomization was used in such a way that the groups were almost similar demographically, the parents was educated thoroughly on how to administer the medicines and blinding was used to eliminate possible bias through the use of the previously generated computer based randomization blocks perfumed not by the researcher. The timeframe of data collection was relatively short as indicated by the 4 hour interim administration of medication to patients. The relative timing of data, as specified in the study, was prospective in nature in which it seeks to estimate the like hood of an event happening or to foresee the possible issues/challenges that the dependent variables might take on the course of the study relative to the results. In conclusion, the methodologies of these two articles, upon in depth analysis, suggest that there are similarities and differences in the conceptualization of the methodologies of studies even if they are dealing with the same industry such as health. The design of the study depends of the purpose that the study needs to meet. It can be experimental or non-experimental as in the case of these two studies and can utilized the prospective if they are seeking to estimate results or cross sectional timeframes if they are aiming to assess the prevalence of the issue given only with the cross section of the population. In analysis, it can be beneficial to note some variables that may be irrelevant to the conduct of the study and determine its possible effects as well as the possible interventions that the study included such as inclusion and exclusion criterion and blinding as in the case of the study on efficacy of antipyretics. The use of methods such as randomization to control confounding variables generally helped the study to come up with the comparable working environments for the conduct of the research methods and in the process eliminating possible sources of errors. These articles however, provided limitations both on the duration, geographic location and sample size as to come up with the generalized conclusion on the issues at hand. References Britz, J. A., & Dunn, K. S. (2010).Self-care and quality of life among patients with heart failure. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 22(9), 480-487. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-7599.2010.00538 Kramer, L. C., Richards, P. A., Thompson, A. M., Harper, D. P., &Fairchok, M. P. (2008). Alternating antipyretics: Antipyretic efficacy of acetaminophen versus acetaminophen alternated with ibuprofen in children. Clinical Pediatrics, 47, 907-911. doi: 10.1177/000992280831996 Overview of Evaluation Design. (N.d.). Retrieved from http://www.bhfactive.org.uk/sites/Exercise-Referral-Toolkit/downloads/appendices/overview-of-evaluation-design.pdf Study Design and Sampling. (N.d.). Unite for Site Research Methodology Online Course. Retrieved from http://www.uniteforsight.org/research-methodology/module2 Read More