Critical Review of Journal Article
INTRODUCTION
This critical review of the quantitative study “Evaluation of a multiprofessional community stroke team: a randomised controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation; 18 pp 40-47
STUDY PURPOSE
The study aims to conclusively evaluate how effective it is to employ a specialist community stroke team for the rehabilitation of stroke victims in a community based setting. This is clearly established at within the opening lines of the article. In the summary at the beginning of the article the author claims that the available evidence is inconclusive and his aim is to provide conclusive proof with regards to evidence based practise for the patient. A research article should state its’ aims clearly and should assume the audience has no previous background knowledge (Greenhalg, 2006).
LITERATURE
The literature reviewed in this article was from a variety of sources such as the Cochrane database and a selection of journal articles. On this basis the authors were able to deduce that previous research carried out provided contradicting reports. For example Roderick et al (2001) as cited by Lincoln et al (2004) found no significant difference in the effectiveness of rehabilitation which had taken place in the home to that which had occurred in a hospital setting. On the contrary Gladman et al (1993) as cited by Lincoln et al (2004) found a significant difference in a small group of younger patients. It was also suggested that there was a shift of focus from mainly hospital based rehabilitation to community based rehabilitation of stroke patients.
According to Polger and Thomas (2008) a literature review should provide appropriate background information. That is, it should show the current knowledge level in that area of study. The author appears to have utilised much of his own previous work in the study and some are more than ten years old. This could possibly be an indication that indeed, there is a large gap in knowledge of this subject area. On the other
This critical review of the quantitative study “Evaluation of a multiprofessional community stroke team: a randomised controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation; 18 pp 40-47
STUDY PURPOSE
The study aims to conclusively evaluate how effective it is to employ a specialist community stroke team for the rehabilitation of stroke victims in a community based setting. This is clearly established at within the opening lines of the article. In the summary at the beginning of the article the author claims that the available evidence is inconclusive and his aim is to provide conclusive proof with regards to evidence based practise for the patient. A research article should state its’ aims clearly and should assume the audience has no previous background knowledge (Greenhalg, 2006).
LITERATURE
The literature reviewed in this article was from a variety of sources such as the Cochrane database and a selection of journal articles. On this basis the authors were able to deduce that previous research carried out provided contradicting reports. For example Roderick et al (2001) as cited by Lincoln et al (2004) found no significant difference in the effectiveness of rehabilitation which had taken place in the home to that which had occurred in a hospital setting. On the contrary Gladman et al (1993) as cited by Lincoln et al (2004) found a significant difference in a small group of younger patients. It was also suggested that there was a shift of focus from mainly hospital based rehabilitation to community based rehabilitation of stroke patients.
According to Polger and Thomas (2008) a literature review should provide appropriate background information. That is, it should show the current knowledge level in that area of study. The author appears to have utilised much of his own previous work in the study and some are more than ten years old. This could possibly be an indication that indeed, there is a large gap in knowledge of this subject area. On the other
References: Altman, D. (1991) Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall Crombie, K., (2000). The Pocket Guide to Critical Appraisal 6th Ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group Greenhalgh, T., (2006) How to Read a Paper: The basics of evidence-based medicine. 3rd Ed. London: BMJ Books. Lincoln, N. B., Walker, M. F. DIXON, A. Knights, P. (2004), Evaluation of a multiprofessional community stroke team: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation; 18: pp40-47 Oppenheim, A. N. (2000) Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement 3rd Ed. Continuum International Publishing Group Payton, O. D. (1994) Research: The Validation of Clinical Practice 3rd Ed Edinburg: Churchill Livingstone. Polgar, S., Thomas S. A. (2008) Introduction to Research in the Health Sciences. 5th ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care (2005) 2nd ed. [Online] Available at: Department of Health htpp://www.dhgov.uk/prod_consum_dh_digitalassets [Date accessed: 05/05/10] Sim, J., Wright, C. (2000) Research in Health Care: Concepts designs and methods Cheltenham: Chippenham and Eastbourne Wright, D. B., London, K., (2009) First (and Second) Steps in Statistics 2nd Edn London: Sage