Nordby,K. Kjonsberg, K. Hummelvoll, J.K.(2009) Relatives of persons with recently discovered serious mental illness: in need of support to become resource persons in treatment and recovery.(Appendix 1). Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing. 17, 304-311.
The above article will be critiqued using Caldwell, Henshaw and Taylor’s (2005) critiquing framework as a guide (Appendix 1). The intent is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the research article and demonstrate knowledge and understanding of research methodology.
The title of the above article reflects its contents and is easy to interpret, as Caldwell, Henshaw and Taylor (2005) concur ‘the title should be clear and allow the reader to easily interpret its contents, an inaccurate title can confuse the reader. But it was a bit too long, as Polit et al (2000), claims that research reports begin with a title that succinctly conveys (typically in 15 or fewer words) the nature of the study.
The researchers of the article are highly qualified and indicate that they possess relevant academic skills and knowledge required for this area of study and have the experience of working in a mental health services. Playle (2000) suggests the qualification indicate the knowledge and expertise of the researcher.
The abstract offers a clear overview of the study, the research problem is identified and rationale is briefly described, findings and future recommendations are mentioned. This allows the reader to get an understanding of what the article entails and if it is of any relevance or interest to them, (Ryan, Coughlin and Cronin, 2007). The abstract should have included the research question to show the readers how the research was carried out. According to Burton & Steane (2004) the abstract is probably the most important section of an article because readers will look at the abstract first and on that basis, decide whether to keep reading or not. They also advice abstract should clearly and succinctly answer a number of question. What research was done? How, when, where was the research done. Why was it done? What was discovered or concluded? And importantly, why does it matter.
The researchers of the article are highly qualified and indicate that they possess relevant academic skills and knowledge required for this area of study and have the experience of working in a mental health services. The article appeared Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, which is a reputable journal. There are also other articles written by the authors in other reputable journal.
The rationale for undertaking this study has been clearly stated and relevant literature has been explored highlighting the extent of the problem and the need to address it. Walsh and Wigens (2003) assert that the rationale for the study and the research problem, including its aims ought to be explained .The literature review appeared to contain few references where there were few studies that have previously been conducted. Some of the information they used was out of date. According to Parahoo (2006), effective review should not be laden with outdated information. In any published piece of research it is essential to provide a comprehensive literature review. It enables the reader to identify why the current study is of importance, what previous research has been conducted and what the researcher proposes to contribute to the known topic area, (Parahoo, 2006). It also allows the reader and considers any limitations, bias and omission.
The aim of the article is clearly identifies the perception and provides an easy and clear explanation of the research. According to Polgar and Thomas (2008) lack of clarity of aims compromises subsequent results and can lead to unclear analysis of evidence.
The authors assert that the study remained to ethical guidelines of the Helsinki declaration. The project was approved by the Norwegian Ombudsman for Privacy Research and the regional...
Cited: Burton, S. & Steane, P. (2004). Surviving Your Thesis.
Caldwell, K. Henshaw, L. & Taylor, G. (2005). Developing a framework for critiquing health research. Journal of health, social and environmental issues. Vol. 6 p45-54.
Finlay, L. Baliinger, C, (2006). Qualitative Research for Allied Health Professionals.
Holloway, I. & Wheeler, S. (2002). Qualitative research in nursing. (2nd ed). Oxford: Blackwell publishing.
Parahoo, K. (2006). Nursing research: principles, process and issues. (2nd ed). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Patton, Q. M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed). UK: Sage publications.
Polgar, S. & Thomas, S. A. (2008). Introduction to research for health sciences (5th edition). Toronto: Elsevier.
Playle, J. F. (2000). Critically appraisal research reports. Journal of Community Nursing. Vol 14 Issue 11.
Polit, D. F. Beck, C. T. & Hungler, B.P. (2000). Nursing Research: Principles and Methods. New York: Lippincott.
Polit, D. Beck, C (2006) Essentials of Nursing Care: Methods, Appraisal and
Rya, F. Coughlan, M. & Cronin, P. (2007). Step by step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: qualitative research. British journal of nursing. Vol 16, no 12.
Walsh, M. And Wigens, L. (2003). Introduction to Research Foundation in Nursing and Healthcare. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document