Research is extremely important in nursing education and throughout professional development, it guides current and future practice to enhance patient care (Tingen et al., 2009). In this assignment a critique of a field specific research paper will be prepared using the Open University’s evaluation framework PROMPT- presentation, relevance, objectivity, method, provenance and timeliness (Tetley, 2017a). The paper by Graves et al. (2016a) has been chosen because when working with older people in a Primary Care setting it has relevance to nursing staff and students to enable them to better support service users with self-management in diabetes.
PresentationLooking at presentation is an opportunity to examine the appearance, quality and format of the paper, if the layout is appropriate, and if the information is clearly readable and easy to understand (Tetley, 2017b). On first appearance of the chosen paper (Graves et al., 2016b) the choice of colour used is suitable however the heading area is quite busy with a lot going on, which can be distracting. The title clearly describes the phenomenon of the study and the first page explains the aim, results and conclusion which encourages further reading. The information is well presented, and the layout easily followed, though the font size is a little small and may be easier to read if it was slightly larger, especially if you were to read a paper copy.
The tabled information is adequately placed and can be construed however it may present better if it had an appropriate title and brief caption. Overall it has been written in a context that can be understood except for several of the abbreviations which are difficult to find the meaning of, therefore an appendix list of abbreviations could have been beneficial. Relevance When evaluating the relevance of information, it is important to look at how relevant the information is in meeting the needs of the question being asked. This will help determine the quality of the information to the particular subject area (The Open University, 2014a).
The information provided in this paper by Graves et al. (2016c) is clearly relevant and of quality to the study undertaken and the question being asked. The terms and language used are comprehensible. Good detail has been provided in the abstract of the nature and aim of the study, how it was conducted, and a conclusion of findings was given. The aim of the study was to gather evidence of the effectiveness of psychological skills training has on primary care nurses as a method of supporting patients’ type 2 diabetes self-management. The evidence was gathered in the form of nurse’s feedback of experiences concluding with the results both positives and negatives of patient care and the support the nurses received from their practice teams. It was discussed that future research might include combining qualitative studies into the analysis plan of Random Control Trials of similar interventions in various settings and populations to identify if findings are similar. This study is applied research as it obtains new knowledge with the focus on improving nursing practice (Tetley, 2017c). Objectivity Critical skills are important when looking at information to determine impartiality, some authors give all the facts on the issue being discussed so we can make up our own minds, whilst others are more selective in what they share.
Therefore, it is vital to identify what are the truths and what are the views and opinions articulated in information (Tetley, 2017d). On review of the paper (Graves et al., 2016d) for objectivity there are no vested interests declared or identified nor have the authors declared any conflicts of interest. Ethical approval was given by the King’s College Hospital Ethics Committee, the study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and was part of independent research. The authors of this paper are well qualified and appropriate for this study as their professional background is in Diabetic Research, with several of them also in Psychological Medicine. The authors position on the issue is unclear however in acknowledgement section of this paper it has been recorded ‘that the views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health’ (Graves et al., 2016e).MethodThe method can determine reliability of information especially in research studies involving questioning or data collection. It is important to look if it’s evident how the research was conducted, and if the methods used were suitable to the study to allow the author to come to a solid and rational conclusion (Tetley, 2017e). Paradigm is the viewpoint research is undertaken and the theories researchers have of the authenticity and knowledge.
There are many paradigms though the three most commonly used in nursing are positivism, naturalism and critical theory. Whichever paradigm a researcher adopts to will shape and determine how the research study is carried out (Tetley, 2017f).The methods used in this paper by Graves et al. (2016f) are clear to identify and on face value appropriate for this study. The Diabetes-6 Study, a randomised controlled trial conducted to compare the efficacy of normal diabetes care delivered by primary care nurses trained in six psychological skills against a control group of primary care nurses not trained in six psychological skills in improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Out of the twenty-three nurse participants only sixteen returned for interview, which consisted of semi-structured interviews relating to nurses’ experiences of participating in a trial of a psychological intervention. Statically these numbers are good sample size as almost 70% interviewees.
The researchers used a thematic framework analysis to compare themes across the participants interviewed which included nine nurses who delivered the intervention and seven from the control intervention with no psychological element. The results produced from this study were consistent with the methods stated, the aim was to explore the nurse’s experiences which they did achieve, and this study highlighted the positives and negatives experienced by both groups. The strength of this study is that it was developed a priori as part of the evaluation process of the Diabetic-6 study and there is less bias in both nurse and researcher because the results of the trial were unknown when the data analysis took place. Positive findings were that with proper team support to utilise skills effectively training nurses empowers patients and has a positive impact on their care.
However, limitations included nurses not feeling comfortable raising concerns they had around the support they received during participation. Implementation of similar interventions should be considered across other areas to identify if it has the same positive impact on improving patient. The methodology used in the paper would suggest that this is inductive research carried out under the paradigm naturalism. A naturalistic researcher explores human behaviour, thoughts and feelings and has an interest to understand individual perspectives. They use a range of qualitative approaches including detailed interviews like those semi-structured interviews carried out in the paper to pursue a thorough understanding of their phenomenon of interest, including grounded theory, ethnography and phenomenology. However, the positivism paradigm could also have been adopted in this study as randomised controlled trials were conducted (Tetley, 2017g). ProvenanceProvenance looks at the source or origin of the information, where it was published, who the authors are and their credentials. It is important to review the worth of the information, if the author is a reliable source and experienced in the subject area (Tetley, 2017h).
On evaluation of the information shared in this paper (Graves et al., 2016g) provenance is evident, the authors are all reliable sources and well experienced to be writing a paper in this subject area. Authors Graves, Garrett and Amiel, form part of Diabetes Research Group, Division of Diabetes & Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King’s College London. And authors Ismail and Winkley are linked to the Department of Psychological Medicine and Diabetes Research Group, King’s College London & Institute of Psychiatry, Weston Education Centre, London. Elsevier published and maintains this article, and it has a publication as a journal article in Primary Care Diabetes. This paper has been peer reviewed to ensure the quality and validity of the academic research piece (Elsevier, 2019) and it has been cited in at least seven other articles of similar subject areas (Graves et al., 2016h). It is unclear if any or all of the authors are known to have a certain perspective in relation to this study however it was recorded in acknowledgements that the views articulated in the publication are the authors.TimelinessLooking into dates of when the article was produced and published are important to identify if it is current or obsolete and to help critic the value of the information.
However sometimes the significance of the information can be greater than the importance of age (Tetley, 2017i). This paper (Graves et al., 2016i) clearly shows article history dates between January and March 2016 of when the information was received, revised, accepted and available online. Within the article an online tool is available to check for updates showing that this document is current and maintained by: Elsevier. This meets the requirements for timeliness as the information is contemporary meaning published within five years (Boswell & Cannon, 2007). Information between five and ten years may not have as much significance to this study and if older than ten years may not be relevant unless no further research had taken place. This research paper has been critiqued using the PROMPT criteria to highlight its strengths and limitations and show if the research approach was suitable for the aim of the study and research questions used. The findings from this study could be applicable to our clinical practice because working in Primary Care there are a large number of service users self-managing diabetes. Furthermore, nursing students, nurses and healthcare staff in a range of settings may benefit from specialised training to enhance their knowledge and skills enabling them to provide better support to service users with self-management in diabetes or other conditions.