ARTICLE CRITIQUE 7
The research design has been clearly identified I the article. Theauthor of the article used the qualitative research design in thestudy. The research in the article sought to find out the effects ofusing a technology based gadget to manage type two diabetes. This isdefinitely a qualitative research. The researcher seeks to understanda certain phenomenon which is how Ipads would improve self efficacyfor the self management of diabetes. It is clear that theparticipants are few and this one of the features of qualitativeresearch. It is also identifiable that the researcher used enormoustime in carrying out the research. This is yet another feature ofqualitative research. The selection of a few participants is informedby the huge cost that is associated with qualitative research. Theresearch will offer the researcher a deep insight into the issuebeing investigated. This is mainly due to the fact that theparticipants are offered the opportunity to express themselves inopen ended questions.
The variables in this research study included the self efficacy,self management behaviors and diabetes controls. These aspects weremeant to be influenced by the use of technology to manage diabetes.It was hypothesized that the use of Ipads would enhance self efficacyhence improve participation in diabetes self management behaviors andalso enhance diabetes control (Fisher & Dickinson, 2011). Thesevariables were measured during the six month period of study throughvarious methods. The participants in the study were allocated Ipadsand journals where they were supposed to enter their behavior logsregarding the diabetes self management. Measurement of the selfmanagement behaviors was done using the Summary of Diabetes Self-CareActivities-Revised (SDSCA) questionnaire (Caralise, Bonnie &Kathy, 2014). This is a form of measurement where the frequency withwhich the participants engage in the behaviors is recorded. Thebehaviors associated with diabetes self management included exercise,food intake, taking medication and monitoring glucose levels. Tomeasure the self efficacy variable, the research used the diabetesmanagement self efficacy scale. This is a ten point Likert scalewhich participants used to indicate their confidence levels inmanaging diabetes. It is essential to note that the higher the scoreon the scale, the higher the level of self efficacy. Lastly, thediabetes control values were measured using the descriptivestatistics (Caralise et al., 2014). This was done at the beginning,in the mid of the research and at the end of the research. Theseresearch variables were extremely vital in determining the effects ofusing technology based gadgets to manage diabetes especially the typeto diabetes.
The study population for this study comprised people who weresuffering from diabetes. It is, however, essential to note that thefinal participants were people with type two diabetes, were over 19years old and could speak and write English. The population was anemployee health group from a diabetes and nutrition center (Caraliseet al., 2014). This population was selected since the researcherneeded participants suffering from diabetes. It was evident that thecenter must have had people with type two diabetes. The researchermanaged to gather at least 17 people who met the criteria for theresearch.
The sample selected by the researcher has various characteristicsand or demographics. The sample contained people suffering from type2 diabetes. This was because the type 2 diabetes requires criticalself management. The sample also needed to have people who are 19years old and above. This was meant to ensure that the participantscan provide critical data and are in a position to make their owndecisions regarding diabetes management. Additionally, theparticipants need to be in a position to communicate in English andalso write in English (Caralise et al., 2014). This is critical sincethe researcher will be communicating in English and the participantsusing the journals will be required to write in English. The initialparticipants were 17 but 3 participants withdrew citing timeconstraints. The remaining 14 participants comprised of 10 femalesand four males. Eleven participants of the fourteen were aged 50years and above and thirteen participants had been diagnosed withType 2 Diabetes in the last 10 years. The remaining six participantswere aged 19-50 years. The sample had a glycemic control that wasviewed as good at the base level. The average A1C level was at 6.59%.The sample comprised of different races with 3 being Africa American,13 being Caucasian and 1 being from other races (Caralise et al.,2014). The education levels of participants also varied with11participants having high school level education or collegeeducation. Five participants had college degree while one participanthad less than high school education level.
The sampling used was a non-probability type of sampling. It isclear that not every person in the target population who had an equalopportunity to participate in the study. The participants had to meetcertain criterion set by the researcher. Some of the conditionsincluded age limits, proficiency in writing and speaking English, aswell as the having type 2 diabetes. The specific sampling type thatwas used is the stratified sampling. This is a type of sampling wherethe participants are selected on the basis of certaincharacteristics. All the people in the population do not have equalopportunities to participate. In this study, it is clear that theparticipants had to meet certain conditions set by the investigator.The participants needed to have English language skills and be 19years old and above. In this research, the target population wasdivided into people with diabetes 2 and those without diabetes two.Although the population had an equal chance to participate, thecriterion for admission made the sampling stratified.
This research is given more credence since it has been approved bythe institution review board. The board at the university that isleading the research has approved the research. Additionally thehospital where the participants are coming from has also approved theresearch. This is critical since it allows the research to conductthe research and to access the necessary funding and information forcarrying out the study.
The research was conducted by three researchers. It is essential tostate that the three researchers are qualified to carry out theresearch study. Two of the three researchers are professors in theschool of nursing at the Auburn University. The other research is anassistant professor at the same university (Caralise et al., 2014).This implies that these are people with adverse knowledge regardingdiabetes and its management. The researchers are also aware of thevarious management strategies applied by the diabetes patients. Theseattributes and the researchers’ backgrounds in nursing allow themto be fully qualified to carry out the research study.
One area where the research study seems to have failed is lack of aprovision for the anonymity of the participants. It is essential tonote that there might have been some valuable participants who wouldhave wished to participate but they pulled out because of the lack ofa provision to safeguard their privacy. Although the researcher maynot have the intention to publicize the details of the participants,it would have been essential to have a provision that guarantees theparticipants of their privacy.
The researchers plan to meet with the participants at the middle ofthe study and at the end of the study. During these meetings, theparticipants could get their results through communication from theresearchers. Additionally, the participants using the Ipads have anopportunity to get the results of their behaviors relating to selfmanagement(Fisher & Dickinson, 2011). Participants could also getthe results from the researchers through the specific email providedfor the research study.
In conclusion, it is evident that the research conducted was indeedstandard research. The research study included the objectives andpurpose of the study. There were also research design and discussionand the results obtained. The presence of the introduction and theliterature review give enormous credence to the research study. Theselection of the participants was also done fairly. However, therewere a small percentage of the males and 14 participants seemedextremely few. This implies that the results cannot be exemplifiedfor the entire population. The approval of the research by theuniversity and the hospital where the research was being carried outwas extremely important. It allowed the researchers to haveconfidence and access to information and resources necessary for theresearch.
Caralise W., Bonnie, K. & Kathy, E. (2014). Support for DiabetesUsing Technology: A Pilot Study to Improve Self-Management. MedsurgNursing. Vol 23, No. 4.
Fisher, L., & Dickinson, W. P. (2011). New technologies toadvance self-management support in diabetes: Not just a bunch ofcool apps! Diabetes Care, 34(1), 240-243.