I don't understand this.

Not at all. Most quantitative studies are highly detailed, numbers-based studies. For example, testing a new drug for efficiency, one uses a double-blind study with 300 test subjects who rate their pain after taking a med. One group takes the actual drug, the other group takes a placebo. Is the actual drug more effective than the placebo?

It's the qualitiative research you'd more likely have difficulty getting straight answers from. For example, before and after 3 months of behavioral therapy, have participants describe their feelings/perceived benefits of therapy and how they feel they have changed.

Your introduction should present the problem/question that the study is addressing. For example: dow effective is Tylenol in treating headaches?

Next, the Methods & Materials section should explain how the study was set up, who's involved, and what materials (if any) were used.

Results will give you a shakedown of what they discovered when they did the actual study. Look for raw numbers and data in this area.

And finally, the discussion section should apply the results to the originally-posed question/problem. Did the study answer the original question? Were the results expected? How does this apply to practice?

I think the thing that confuses me is, the objective doesn't imply or directly ask a question.

The purpose of the research is to determine how environmental characteristics affect infant feedings in open wards vs in single family rooms.

The results were that infants feed better in open wards.

It's just hard for me to fond what exactly were the researchers expectations .

Do u have a link to the article?

Doooouble post!

Traditional open-bay versus single-family room neonatal intensive care

Is this it? It's a quantitative study.

I'd say the researchers in this study expected the dNICU would have a positive impact on how quickly the infants progressed in feeding.

Previous reports have documented positive influence of the dNICU (developmentally appropriate NICU) in cardiorespiratory status, physiologic stability, and weight gain of the infants.

Based on your original post, I'd call it mixed results. They expected the infants in the dNICU to progress in all areas of feeding (parenteral, enteral and bottle) faster than the infants in the tNICU, but they found that the infants in the dNICU only progressed faster in enteral feeding. They include the caveat that the infants in the dNICU were sicker than the ones in the tNICU, which may explain why they didn't progress as quickly as they expected.

Although the two groups of infants only differed in the days to reach full enteral feeding, it is important to remember that the lack of difference may be clinically significant. Clinically, the infants in the dNICU were younger (gestational age) and sicker (CRIB acuity score) than the infants in the tNICU.

The study you posted is almost exactly similar to the quantitative study that I am critiquing.

"Effects of the neonatal intensive care unit environment on preterm infant oral feeding"

Objective: To examine the effect of neonatal intensive care unit environmental characteristics (perceived levels of light and sound, and time of day) in open unit wards and single-family rooms (SFRs) on oral feeding outcomes in preterm infants.

Results: Data were collected on 5111 feedings in the ward unit and 5802 in the SFR unit from feedings involving 87 preterm infants. Light and sound were rated significantly lower in the SFR (χ2 = 139 and 1654.8, respectively). Feeding times of 9 am, 12 noon, and 3 pm were associated with the highest perceived levels of light and sound, regardless of unit design (P , 0.0001). Moderate light levels and feeding times of 12, 3, and 6 am were associated with improved feed- ing outcomes. Infants consumed a greater proportion of their prescribed feeding volume when fed in the open ward and when awake before feeding.

Conclusion: Further study on the clinical effects of unit design is needed, as is study on the effects of environmental stimuli, so that interventions can be appropriately developed and tailored for infants needing the most support for optimal development.

Research has to be the one of the hardest class I've taken in nursing school so far (sigh).

Thank you so much btw!

You're right--the researchers in your study aren't as clear in their abstract about their expectation of the study results.

The study itself, however, is a different story. In the first few sentences of the study, it states:

"Many NICUs have been redesigned from multipatient wards to SFR (single family room) design with the expectation of improved patient outcomes."

There's your hint. The researchers want to see if this new method is simply a sign of the times or if it actually has benefit for their patients.

However, even with only the abstract to skim, it's not too difficult to see where they're going with this. Think about trends in current medicine: moving away from open-ward units, the focus on single-patient rooms even for adults. A bit of experience (which will of course come with time!) would also make most nurses say, "Hmmm, a single-room NICU? I'll bet that the ability to control the environment (light, sound, etc) would make a difference for infants who are developmentally sensitive to that kind of thing!".

Don't worry. I hated research too until one day, it just clicked. The trick is to keep doing what you're doing! You're always welcome to ask questions of us on AN, and we appreciate folks like you who are actively engaged in the learning process and not just looking for a quick answer. :) Keep trying to understand and asking questions. It'll click one day for you, too!

I think the expectation was that there would be a difference. Period.

Hello you all, I have completed the data analysis, and interpretation of findings section critique. I was wondering if you could read it and tell me if you think it sounds good.

1. the research was conducted.

II. Analysis of Data

A. The data analysis procedures used in the study were clearly recognized and suitable. After data was collected and manually entered into a secure database by trained data-entry personal, data was then checked for completeness and accuracy. To achieve this, a system of quarterly data audits and statistical assessments were performed. Data were evaluated using Chi-square, descriptive statistics, and logistic regression repeated-measures modeling. Percent consumed was scaled into a bound variable. Predictor variables were added to the model along with interaction terms of known interest. Backward stepwise methods were used to choose an adequate model to fit data (Pickler, et al., 2013). The researchers tested reliability of measurement measures. For this study the level of significance was 0.05. To simplify the model the researchers assumed that measures on a different day for a single subject were independent.

B. The objective was to examine the differential effects of NICU environmental characteristics associated with open NICU ward and single family room or private room design on oral feeding outcomes in preterm infants. The analysis techniques used (descriptive, Chi-square, and logistic regression repeated measures modeling) clearly address information pertinent to the subject under consideration (light, sound and nursery type). For example the Chi-square analysis showed how light and sound were rated significantly lower in the single family room unit versus the ward.

C. The analyses conducted and results were summarized and presented in a narrative of the study and were also presented in tables. The results section began with a description of the sample and the sample characteristics such as weight, race, and morbidity index. The Chi-square results were clearly presented in Table 1 and discussed in the text of the research article. Infants consumed a greater proportion of their prescribed feeding volume when fed in the open ward and when awake before feeding. As indicated in the abstract, the study results were significant for all study variables. The results were easy to read, as Table 1 displayed the differences in light, sound, and activity by unit type. Table 2 displayed light, sound, and unit type, which were all significant predictors of feeding outcomes. Sex, morbidity, and maturity were also significant predictors of the feeding outcomes.

The researchers identified that there were limitations to the data and therefore its interpretation. First, the study was conducted in a single health-care facility with the same staff and policies regarding oral feeding of preterm infants in both unit types. Second, some nurses’ perceptions of the environmental conditions might differ from other nurses’ perception. Third, there were three sets of twins included in the analysis who were all in a single family room with the same family. This approach could differ in other units that allow only one infant per room. Finally, the study only includes one feeling outcome, meaning it may not be the most significant one (Pickler, et al., 2013).