Quantitative paper

Quantitative Paper

Introduction

Quantitative research study has some obstacles and biases that researcher's encounter during research studies. The ability of the researcher to develop a study that would yield strong evidence that would produce a good result will help to avoid those obstacles (Polit & Beck, 2008). The purpose of this paper is to critique a quantitative article on effectiveness of an aspiration risk-reduction protocol and other aspects including but not limited to identification of population, sample, addressing ethical considerations for the study and identifying the level of evidence based will be discussed.

Methods of Data Collection

The article addressed a proposed method to decrease aspiration threat in a collection of seriously ill, mechanically ventilate patients who are pipe fed through three-pronged intervention approach. The interventions method constituents include keeping head-of-bed elevated at 30 degrees or above, until contraindicated; putting tube and feed into distal tiny bowel, if necessary; and using an algorithmic method for elevated gastric enduring volume (Metheny, Davis-Jackson & Stewart 2010).

Population and Sample

The study had two-group quasi-experimental design of significantly ill mechanically ventilated adult patients receiving tube feedings. One of which was control and 329 were in the control population, while 145 were in the experimental group. The patients were all drawn from the same five Intensive Care Units at a Level I trauma located in the Midwest (Metheny, Davis-Jackson & Stewart 2010; Polit & Beck, 2008).

Ethical Considerations

Ethical consideration deals with the researchers obtaining informed consent from the study population (Harris, McGregor, Perencevich, Furuno, Zhu, Peterson, and Finkelstein, 2006). In the article, data were only obtained from those that gave informed concept. One ethical concern is the lack of treatment given that could potentially benefit the control group. Ultimately, in comparing the success rates of the two groups, aspiration was much lower in the Aspiration Risk Reduction Protocol (ARRP) group than in the control (39% versus 88%). Pneumonia rates were also lower in the experimental ARRP group (19% versus 48%). using the Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) (Metheny, Davis-Jackson & Stewart 2010). Levels of consciousness, levels of sedation, and severity of disease were also assessed in the two groups before and after the experiment and the ARRP group was judged to be in better health than the control group by all measured indicators of overall wellness (Metheny, Davis-Jackson & Stewart 2010).

Instrumentation and Data Collection Methods

Data gathering was descriptive in nature and taken at face value. In an ...