Critique problem statement.. am I doing it right?

  1. i am writing a critique for a research article - it is a group project and i am to critique the problem statement.
    i don't know if i am doing it right, i don't know how to critique if the research problem is "significant to nursing" and if it is "researchable". these are two components our professor want us to critique. but i am really lost. below is what i have so far, can anyone help me read it over to see if i am doing it right, and how exactly do you critique if its researchable? if its not researchable.. how can the research study be published in the first place..

    for this particular study - how do you explain that it is a researchable study? our teacher mentioned about "financial aspect, administrative aspect".. but how do you talk about financial aspect, isn't all research funded differently? and what does administrative aspect mean?

    routine resite of peripheral intravenous devices every 3 days did not reduce complications compared with clinically indicated resite: a randomised controlled trial

    a problem statement should, 1) establish the relevancy and significance of the problem, 2) demonstrate implication to the nursing field, 3) clearly and concisely address the problem to be researched, and 4) be researchable (polit & beck-tatano, 2010).

    to build their case, the authors first demonstrated the prevalent use of piv by providing statistics from journal by the clinical infectious diseases showing that there are nearly “150 million peripheral intravenous devices (ivd) placed each year in north america alone. ivds are vital for delivery of hydration, medicines and nutrition but are not without complications” (rickard, et al., 2010). this immediately gave relevance to the problem explored in the article. the statement is clear and it is supported by justification that peripheral ivd is a popular procedure though it has complications resulting after or during its use. the study also demonstrated the significance for nursing practice when it addresses how the policies of changing piv routinely not only discomforting to the patient but also increases the workload of the nurses as they are usually the ones carrying the responsibilities of monitoring, inserting and removing the pivs. additionally, through reviewing of literature, the authors indicated that several similar rcts have shown the outcome of routine replacement of pivd does not different significantly different compare to routine replacement every 3 days (de jager et al., 2002, p. 832). this means it is realistic to believe that similar experiments (and perhaps similar results) can be conducted and this problem statement is researchable.

    at the end of the background introduction, the article stated that piv insertion is not only a distressing and unpleasant experience to the patients; it involves staff procedural time, and is also costly to the facility (rickard, et al., 2010). therefore, “if replacement only on clinical indication is safe and effective, this would have important benefits for patients and the health system”. here, the authors presented their point of view in a neutral and conservative way without turning the problem into a statement or proposing a research question. this statement concisely summarized the problems in a sentence but failed to clearly address the need for further research or their intention of doing this study.
    Last edit by miniangel729 on Apr 22, '11
  2. Visit miniangel729 profile page

    About miniangel729

    Joined: May '08; Posts: 79; Likes: 10


  3. by   Rob72
    Probably too late to help, but I'm curious as to what you came up with.

    1) "Researchable"- yes, although it would require some digging. My suspicion is that this falls more under QA/QI databases than controlled studies. E.g., if you are doing clinicals/working at a facility, see if they have an outcomes database that has covered PVC practice. I'm a bit leery of European model studies that favor cost-containment, in much the same way I question US studies demonstrating efficacy- that were extended 5 years.

    2) Veeeery limited study, which largely begs further exploration than any usable finding(s). Non-SOC candidates were essentially models of health, with limited or no con-coms. For that demographic, it is a viable model. Having said that, information is needed of morbitity r/inadequate history, undiagnosed con-coms, etc.(if it is going anywhere, other than a generic, "this is my annual academic publication..."). Essentially, it is telling us what we already know. Useful, if you are trying to change a rigid treatment model in the overall healthcare system, but in outcome-based practice facilities, it is being done.