Posted: November 8th, 2023
Article Research Analysis
|FG004: Research Analysis|
Part 1: Research Analysis
Complete the table below
|Topic of Interest:|
|Research Article: Include full citation in APA format, as well as link or search details (such as DOI)||Kuipers, S. J., Cramm, J. M., & Nieboer, A. P. (2019). The importance of patient-centered care and co-creation of care for satisfaction with care and physical and social well-being of patients with multi-morbidity in the primary care setting. BMC Health Services Research, 19(13), 1-9. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3818-y|
|Abstract||Patients receiving primary care for multi-morbidities tend to have difficult experiences and are costly for healthcare organizations to manage. The present healthcare system is not designed to meet the needs of patients with multi-morbidity. Co-creation of care and patient-centered care are presented as ways to improve the health outcomes, including social wellbeing of such patients.|
|Professional Practice Use: One or more professional practice uses of the theories/concepts presented in the article||The article informs healthcare professionals how to employ patient-centered care to enhance patient satisfaction and outcomes in primary care. Factors, such as shared goals, mutual respect, and shared knowledge are critical in the realization of social wellbeing. Acknowledging the patient’s unique needs results in more empathetic and trusting interactions, which help address the patient’s need for behavioural and emotional confirmation.|
|Research Analysis Matrix Add more rows if necessary||Focus on the following and reflect on a strength or weakness||Label “x” for yes||Label “x” for no||Description|
|Was there a problem, statement, purpose, need for the study, or research questions fully established?||While there is no purpose statement, the research article does outline the study aim. The research questions are also not fully established. However, the hypothesis is clear and highlights the purpose of the study|
|Was the introduction section robust and based on current literature?||The introduction is very comprehensive as it details the background information on multi-morbidity and co-creation of care. Cited information is less than ten-years, meaning the introduction is based on current literature|
|Was the methodology appropriate?||A cross-sectional survey was suitable in providing a comparative analysis of the impact of PCC on patient outcomes. Fix et al. (2018) employed the same approach in their research. The method could be replicated in different medical settings to confirm the relationship between the research variables|
|Was the sample size adequate?||216 patients from 8 different medical settings was an appropriate and adequate sample size. A 55% participant response rate is not bad for a private study|
|Were the results based on the data?||Correlation and regression are statistical methods used to confirm the relationship between two or more variables, which the study accomplishes. The results are reliable and replicable|
|Were the charts, tables graphs, pictures, discussions adequate and easy to understand?||Graphical representations were well organized and coloured to improve comprehension. Mathematical information is well summarized in the tables, improving their support of textual information|
|Were the conclusions based on the results?||The conclusion is well elaborated. There is a brief discussion on the results and method to provide a contextual understanding of them. The results are consistent with the research hypothesis and research aims.|
|Were ethics applied?||The discussion on limitations shows compliance with ethical guidelines for scientific research. The paper indicates that research participants gave their consent for the study. The paper was equally approved by a Medical Committee located in Rotterdam. Netherlands.|
Part 2: Reflection and Narrative
Kuiper et al.’s (2019) cross-sectional survey is a research article I would recommend to healthcare professionals working in the primary care setting. The results of the study are accurate, reliable, and replicable. The proven relationship between PCC and patient satisfaction and social wellbeing can be applied to enhance patient experiences and management in primary care (Fix et al. 2018). Focusing on PCC is bound to improve patient-clinician interactions by enhancing trust, empathy, and goodwill.
Identifying and assessing peer-reviewed research is a structured process. Foremost, I identify scientific databases, such as BMC Health Services, PubMed Central, and the Cochrane Library. Engle et al. (2021) consider the scientific engines as integral in the promotion of evidence based practice. The second step is to use keywords that match my goal for the online search. The third step is to include search filters in the search engines, including date, region, and peer reviews. Fix et al.’s (2018) article was sourced through an online search on BMC Health using keywords from Kuiper et al. (2019). The search led to scientific studies covering the same subject, with the same findings, but different research methods.
One strategy I found reliable in assessing the credibility of research is looking if the selected study has been reviewed by peer researchers. The number of citations from fellow professionals highlights the credibility and reliability of the paper. The other strategy I have found useful is to click on the information links for the authors to access their previous scholarly contributions and professional acclamations. Engle et al. (2021) considers the hyperlinks to external sources in digital search engines as an advantage in sourcing scientific information.
As much as I would want to cite the numerous medical databases accessible to students, such as PubMed and Walden, I have found that time is a hidden but imperative resource. It takes time to narrow down research and ensure the final articles meet the study objectives and are reliable. Time is key to an effective online search, which results in the retrieval of relevant research material.
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.