Need Help With This Assignment?

Let Our Team of Professional Writers Write a PLAGIARISM-FREE Paper for You!

SUBMIT YOUR ASSIGNMENT

Art, Pages: 1

Critical Appraisal of an Intervention Journal Article

Critical Appraisal of an Intervention Journal Article

Critical Review Form for an Intervention Article

Guide Notes/Comments
I. Are the results valid?
– Did the study explicitly address a sensible question? The study, titled “Evaluating a Brief Behavioral Intervention for Young Adults at Risk of Cardiovascular Disease,” successfully addressed a meaningful question by investigating the effects of a brief behavioral intervention on young adults with a family history of cardiovascular disease. The research question aligns with the study’s objective.
– Were patients randomized? The article does not specify whether patients were randomized into groups (Imes et al., 2016). Randomization is crucial in clinical trials to minimize bias and improve internal validity. The lack of this information raises concerns about potential selection bias and the study’s internal validity. Without randomization, it is challenging to attribute the observed effects solely to the intervention.
– Were patients analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized? The article does not provide details regarding the analysis methodology. To ensure internal validity, it is essential that patients are analyzed according to their original group assignments (Imes et al., 2016). The absence of this information makes it difficult to assess the study’s methodological quality.
– Were patients in treatment and control groups similar with respect to known prognostic indicators? The article lacks information on the similarity of patients in the treatment and control groups. It is important that the groups are comparable at baseline to ensure that any differences in outcomes can be attributed to the intervention. The absence of this information raises concerns about confounding variables.
– Were the groups (patients, caregivers, collectors of outcome data, adjudicators of outcome, data analysis) aware of group allocation? The article does not provide details on the blinding or awareness of group allocation. Ideally, participants, caregivers, and outcome assessors should be blinded to group assignments to minimize bias (Imes et al., 2016). The lack of this information raises concerns about performance and detection bias.
– Aside from the experimental intervention, were groups treated equally? The article does not specify whether groups were treated equally. Equal treatment, apart from the intervention under investigation, is essential to isolate the intervention’s impact on outcomes (Imes et al., 2016). Without this information, it is challenging to assess the potential sources of bias.
– Was the follow-up complete? The article mentions a two-week follow-up period but does not provide details on the completeness of the follow-up. Complete follow-up is crucial to avoid attrition bias. Without information on follow-up rates and reasons for dropouts, it is challenging to assess the potential impact of attrition on the study’s results and conclusions.
II. What are the results?
– How large was the treatment effect? The article reports a medium effect size on heart disease knowledge, perceived risk, and intention to engage in a healthy lifestyle (Imes et al., 2016). This suggests that the brief behavioral intervention had a measurable impact on these outcomes. A medium effect size indicates a moderate practical significance.
– How precise was the treatment effect? The article does not provide information on the precision of the treatment effect. The precision of effect estimates is typically reported as confidence intervals or p-values. The absence of this information limits our ability to assess the statistical significance and confidence in the reported results.
III. How can I apply the results to my patient care?
– Were the study patients similar to my patients? The article does not provide detailed demographic information about the study patients, making it challenging to determine the generalizability of the results to my specific patient population (Imes et al., 2016). It is important to consider whether my patients share characteristics with those in the study to ensure the relevance of the findings.
– Were all patient-important outcomes considered? The article mentions heart disease knowledge, perceived risk, and intention to engage in a healthy lifestyle as outcomes. While these outcomes are relevant, it is essential to consider whether they align with the priorities and needs of your patients. Additional patient-important outcomes may also be relevant to your patient care context.
– Are the likely benefits worth the costs and the potential harm/risks? The article does not discuss the potential harm/risks or conduct a cost-benefit analysis (Imes et al., 2016). It is essential to consider the potential risks or adverse effects associated with the intervention. Additionally, assessing the cost-effectiveness and resource implications of implementing the intervention in a patient care setting is crucial to making an informed decision about its adoption.

References

Imes, C. C., Dougherty, C. M., Lewis, F. M., & Austin, M. A. (2016). Outcomes of a Pilot Intervention Study for Young Adults at Risk for Cardiovascular Disease Based on Their Family History. The Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 31(5), 433–440. https://doi.org/10.1097/jcn.0000000000000261

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Question 

Critical Appraisal of an Intervention Journal Article

Critical Appraisal of an Intervention Journal Article

Complete the Critical Appraisal of an Intervention Journal Article Form – Simple Yes and No answers are not acceptable – you must provide a supporting sentence based on your reading of the article:

Article:  Imes et al. _2015_Firstonline.pdf

Form to be completed:

Critical Appraisal of an Intervention Journal Article (1).docx

Learning Objective:

To determine if an intervention article has drawn conclusions that are valid and applicable to practice.

Directions:

  1. Read the assigned Intervention Journal article carefully.
  2. Critique the assigned intervention article using the form below.

 Critical Review Form for an Intervention Article

Guide Notes/Comments
1. Are the results valid?
Did the study explicitly address a sensible question?

Restate the research question in your own words by using the PICOT approach below:

Use PICOT:

P= Program

I= Intervention/Treatment

C= Control Group

O= Outcome

T= Time (if applies)

 Example of restating the question for a research study using PICOT:

The research program about (fill-in) addressed the outcome (fill-in) by applying this intervention (fill-in) to people and comparing the findings to the control group.
Were patients randomized?
Were patients analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized?
Were patients in treatment and control groups similar with respect to known prognostic indicators?
Were the groups (patients, caregivers, collectors of outcome data, adjudicators of outcome, data analysis) aware of group allocation?
Aside from the experimental intervention, were groups treated equally?
Was the follow-up complete?
Guide Notes/Comments
II. What are the results?
How large was the treatment effect?
How precise was the treatment effect?
III. How can I apply the results to my patient care?
Were the study patients similar to my patients?
Were all patient-important outcomes considered?
Are the likely benefits worth the costs and the potential harm/risks?

Based on: DiCenso, A., Guyatt, G., & Ciliska, D. (2005). Evidence-Based Nursing: A guide to clinical practice. St. Louis: Elsevier.