Research is a key and fundamental component in nursing as it contributes to newly discovered and substantiate development to inform good nursing practices. NMC would concur with this as they encourage nurses to bestow care on the basis of conducted research evidences relating to good practices. Likewise, Lee (2006); Coughian, Cronin & Ryan (2007); Cutcliffe & Ward (2007); Polit & Beck (2009); Rebar et al (2010) underlines a similar point that research is needed to make sure that patient obtain suitable standard of care in addition to patient care leading into advancement.
A methodical analysis of this article will be conducted to also discover if this research is validated and reliable enough to be utilised into practice. As cited by Wood and Janet Ross-Kerr, (2011), the purpose, however of a research critique is to conclude whether the findings are accurately carried out, interpreted, practical and usable for others health professions to implement into practice and take into account.
The objective of this research critique is to conduct a critical and scrutinized appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the selected article in the Nursing Times entitled ‘Why do students fail to disclose health problems?'(Devereux et al, 2012) As highlighted by Boswell and Cannon (2012), the notion of research critiques is to effectively identifying the strengths and limitations of a research article. Likewise, Boswell and Cannon (2012) would agree as they articulate that research critique is determining the standards and worth article based on a careful study.
This research critique will pay close attention to various elements of the article chosen, for instances, writing style, and title of the article, credibility of the researcher, credibility of the journal, abstract, literature review, how is the purpose of research addressed, research approach, research design or research tradition, research methodology for data collection, sample, settings, tools, ethical issues, procedures, data analysis, the rigour of findings, findings/conclusion, discussion and references.
Furthermore, the research critique framework ‘Developing a framework for critiquing health research’ has been selected to be guided in this critique by Caldwell, Henshaw and Taylor (2011). The underlying reason for electing this framework is because it demonstrates such an accommodating systematic, simplistic and well-grounded approach to critiquing an article as a beginner whilst conducting a good research. Caldwell, Henshaw and Taylor, (2011) points out that this framework intended usage is a teaching device, providing lucidity and help to do an appraisal methodically which was conducted by consisting of apposite questions for quantitative and qualitative research.
‘Why do students fail to disclose health problems?’ is a chosen article that drew a momentous inquisitiveness and questioning as to why student do actually fail to disclose health problems, which, it could be a range of justified reasons.
A title in an article is vital that it reflects correspondently to the content of an article with the right quantity of words used which this article manages to accomplish. As Parahoo (2006) explains that an article needs a certain amount of words in a title to show that the article has been reflected as it should.
The title of the article ‘Why do students fail to disclose health problems?’ draws to the readers with a short and unambiguous understanding of what the article briefly entails as it is enlightening to read. The aim of the title really captures the main elements of the research; the subject which makes the title effective. The title manages to excel overall in notifying the audience what the article is going about. Penrose and Katz (2010); Ross (2012) would approve of this as they stress that the intention of a title is to tell readers precisely and reflectively what material gathered data will be shown in the article.
The title is provocative to the mind to question and contemplate of all the reasons possible to why students fall short to unveil health problems, the title reflects really well on specific the concerns that students do not provide significant important of pre-existing or current health problem. In fact, Oermann and Hays (2010) states that an effective title ought to be concise and cautiously worded to seize the aim of the study and being selective with their words to make it informative for their targeted readers.
On the downside, the title essentially refers to ‘students’ who fails to disclose health problems which is vague and indirect as to which type of students is this article referring to whether it is a university student, college student, medical student, law student, or just any student studying in university. The title should be more in terms of highlighting exact kinds of students that the study is based on as it is questionable as to the article referring to students in general.
Therefore, this part of the articles lacks the ability to be precise in what students they are targeting in the title. As stated by Rizvi (2005) that in order for a title to be approaching it is important that the title is specific, inclusive, informative and it consists of key words that will show readers to the article. Another weakness of the title is that it consists of eight words; which according to Berg and Latin (2008); Polit & Beck (2009); Grinnell & Unrau (2008) a title usually are approximately ten to fifteen words for the title to be meaningful. This could be disputed; despite the title being short in words it still upholds the essence on top of the clarity in summarising in the article.
The strong aspect of the authors’ credibility is that the authors are experts in the field of nursing and have experience in working with student nurses. A research is deemed to be credible and trustworthy when there is a display of reliable account of personal experience regarding relevant field in the article (Gethin & Clune-Mulvaney, 2009). The group of authors that produced this article all obtain suitable academic qualifications such as masters and doctorates.
They are in a specialized area relevant to the research; for instance, Julie Devereux is a practice learning capacity coordinator, Pat Hosgood is a senior lecturer/ programme leader foundation degree integrated practice, Barbara A Jack was trained nurse, director, specialise in research methods and Annette M Jinks is a professor of nursing. Jennifer Kirton is research assistant who has does not have any relevant qualification of this research field although has obtain a degree in social research.
There are a numerous of authors that has played a significant role in this article which shows to a degree its dependability. All the authors’ qualifications/positions points out an amount of information/experience in this specific area relating to the research article. Coughian, Cronin & Ryan (2007) note that an researchers credentials and profession position is considered to be valuable indicator into the author’s awareness of the area analysed and capability to ask suitable questions. Conversely, Conkin Dale (2005) debates that a research does not entirely indicate soundness and trustworthiness taking into account the author’s qualification rather on its value of the paper. Based on further discovery, the author has had previous record of publication on other journals which completely certify their credibility (Rubin, Rubin & Hardakis, 2010).
The abstract of this article falls short to provide a concise summary of the paper which leaves the reader oblivious and provides a small amount of usage to reader in determining if the article has caught their interest and/or convince them to reads more. Normally, abstracts consist of 100 to 200 words (Ingham-Broomfield, 2008). The abstract does not present any focus of the study.
The abstract does not succeed to inform readers an outline of the research alongside with the specific objectives, methodology, findings and conclusion. Additionally, as it is supported by many authors; an abstract should be clear and succinct with a general idea of the research, information about its aim, method approaches and results (Marshall, 2005; Conkin Dale, 2005; Coughian, Cronin & Ryan, 2007; Polit & Beck, 2009; Moule & Goodman, 2009; Rebar et al, 2010). However, the authors manage to highlights and identify the research question in the abstract which reinforces its relevance.
The article being critiqued on was issued into the Nursing Times; Nursing Times has been in existence since 1906, it is one of United Kingdom’s biggest publishers as it has constant printed materials. It has a reputable publication regarding up to date practices, articles, profession problems and news for nurses in the United Kingdom (Nursing Time, 2013). Consequently, the journal is credible based on their most contemporary article been published in this highly regarded periodical (Rubin et al, 2010).
On the contrary, double blinded peer review is a very constructive aspect to this article reason being it illustrates that the research article to be unbiased, reliable and impartial as authors are able to truthfully critique an article whilst having their identify camouflaged. Although, it can be argued that ‘double blinded’ does not literally conceal the author’s identify based on their customary approach and conduct of research in a study. The reviewers may effortlessly be familiarised by this.
Harris (2012) would support this conception with evidence that there is certainly not a blind process as substantial of reviewers have the ability to detect authors when they cite their previous work into the research, science related methods, writing manner, contexts of the study. This article has the privilege to obtain a double-blind peer reviewed to be evaluated regarding its quality before being published. Besides, a double blind review adds to the value of articles (Burns & Grove, 2009; Gedney et al, 2008). This article contains three numbers of pages does really indicate that there was not sufficient research literature that has been carried out to conduct the study where it maybe just an overview of the study.
After a comprehensive examination of the critique, the presentation of the authors writing style does exceptionally well in expressing clarity of their ideas, intentions, findings and discussion in article. The structure of the text in the article was efficient, well written readable and reader friendly, hence it improves the credibility of the article (Cutcliffe and Ward, 2007). There is no evidence of grammatical error; wrongly use of punctuation, run-on sentence and limited uses of verbosity which made the article easy to follow whilst the authors’ points are recognized. The occasional use of jargon was indicated in the article