Evidence-BasePractice: Assessing the Quality of the Article
Evidence-BasePractice: Assessing the Quality of the Article
Scholarlysources and information can be accessed online and offline, but itsquality has to be ascertained. The quality of a given source can beassessed by evaluating the study design, possibility of bias, and theusability of the findings reported in the article among otherfactors. This will assess the quality of the article “Servicemenand veterans with major traumatic limb loss from Vietnam War andOIF/OEF conflicts: Survey methods, participants, and summeryfindings”. This article was written by a group of about sevenauthors and published in the Journal of Rehabilitation Research andDevelopment in the year 2010.
Purposeof the study
Thepurpose of the authors conducting the research reported in thearticle was to assess the perceived quality of health and the use ofprosthetic devices among veterans who took part in the war on terrorin Iraq. The study relates my research question, “What is the bestpractice for educating amputee veterans with head trauma on theutilization of new prosthetics?” in that it focuses on the use ofprosthetic device among veterans. By assessing the rate of use ofprosthetic device and their perceived level of significance, it willbe possible to determine the best way to educate the veterans.
Thefact that the U.S. has been sending thousands of soldiers to waroutside the country where many of them return wounded, but very fewscholars have focused on the medical issues (such as trauma) thatthese service men face justified the need for the research.
Theauthor chose the cross-sectional study design, which helped themachieve the purpose of their research. The cross-sectional deignallow researchers to collect data at a single point in time, thussaving on time and other resources (Mann, 2013). The fact that theselected study design helped the team of researchers answer theirresearch questions satisfactorily implies that the design wassuitable for the study.
Theability of the researchers to select a sample that represents thetarget population determines the reliability as well as thegeneralizability of the study findings. Researchers in the presentarticle recruited a total of 581 participants, including 298 veteransand 283 service men suffering from trauma. Participants were agedbetween 50 and 80 years. The similarities between the groups includethe fact that all members suffered from trauma and had taken part inwar outside the U.S. The population size was adequate and served asa good representative of the population of veterans and servicemen.Therefore, the data collected from participants was adequate to makeconclusions. Moreover, participants were recruited through randomsampling, which is the most reliable strategy for reducing chancesfor the occurrence of bias, thus enhancing the quality of findings(Teddlie & Yu, 2007). However, the authors did not give adequateconsideration to the issue of ethical practices. They simplymentioned that participants were informed about the importance of theresearch, without indicating whether an informed consent was obtainedbefore proceeding with the research.
Someof the key measures of outcome considered in the article includetraumatic brain injury, prosthesis-related skin problems,post-traumatic stress disorder, and the use of prosthetic devices.The researchers focused on the areas of overall quality of life afterwar, overall health status, and the need for prosthetic devices.
Themain intervention occurred during the data collection whereparticipants were requested to respond by way of telephone call,online survey, or mailed hardcopy. The focus was on the veterans andservicemen who qualified for participation in the study. Theprocedure for intervention was clear and could be replicated.
Resultsand their clinical significance
Theincrease in TBI was statistically significant as compared toparticipants with head injuries for the two categories of conflictsconsidered in the study. However, the prevalence of PTSD among theveterans and servicemen was not statistically significant. Allmultiple outcomes were taken into account for the statisticalanalysis.
Theresults had clinical importance because they indicate thesignificance of rehabilitation of the amputated veterans who are atthe risk of suffering from trauma than the general population. Thedifferences between the two groups were clinically meaningful becausethe study indicated that rehabilitation efforts were more successfulamong serve men than veterans.
Responsewas received from 62 % of participants, which implies that 38 % ofthem drop out of the study. There was no reason given for theirdropping out. The drop out was reported appropriately in the study.However, the response rate of 62 % is reasonable and it can beconcluded that the researchers collected adequate amount ofinformation.
Thestudy concluded that veterans were able to recover most of theirfunctions from rehabilitation efforts and the use of prostheticdevices. The implications of the studies are that the stakeholdersshould plan for the prosthetic-related services, rehabilitation, andeconomic implication s of providing assistance and education toveterans.
Themain limitation could have resulted from the fact that the veteransas well as the servicemen who took part in the study could befunctioning at high levels than those who failed to respond, whichmight have reduces the accuracy as well as the reliability of thestudy. In overall, the article is a reliable source and its findingshave significant clinical implications.
Mann,C. (2013). Observational research methods, research design II:Cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies. EmergencyMedicine Journal,20, 54-60.
Reiber,E., McFarland, V., Hubbard, S., Blough, K., Maynard, C., Gambel, M.,& Smith, G. (2010). Servicemen and veterans with major traumaticlimb loss from Vietnam War and OIF/OEF conflicts: Survey methods,participants, and summery findings. Journalof Rehabilitation Research and Development,47 (4), 299-316.
Teddlie,C. & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling a typology withexamples. Journalof Mixed Methods Research,1 (1), 77-100.