In the introductory section of their article, Freedman et al. (2011) clearly state the objective of their study, namely to determine if rapid rehydration can be more effective than standard intravenous rehydration in those cases, when medical workers have to attend to children with gastroenteritis. However, it is easily identifiable. Overall, the problem statement clearly explains the rational for the study since gastroenteritis still poses a threat to patients. This problem is relevant to nurses who are responsible for rehydration of patients. The finding of this study can help them improve their practices. Overall, quantitative research is quite suitable in this case, because it enables the researchers to test a specific hypothesis. The authors conjecture that rapid rehydration can be more effective than standard rehydration. To some extent, this conjecture is supported by various studies which have been done within the last three years. The authors offer a sound interpretation of the sources and literature review provides a sound basis for the study.
In the introduction Anderson et al. (2008) clearly state the problem that they investigate, namely the experiences of both non-Indigenous and indigenous Australians who suffer from end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). The problem is both clearly stated and easily identifiable. The question examined by the scholars can be relevant to nurses who need to give moral support to people with ESKO. Overall, qualitative design is more suitable in this case, because it enables to understand the experiences and perception of patients. The research questions are identified or stated clearly. They are not singled out in any way. The authors do not provide an extensive summarization of other studies done in this area.
Critique of Methodology
Freedman et al. (2011) do not describe the safeguards aimed at protecting the rights of patients. It is also not stated whether this study was assessed by an external ethics review board. However, it is possible to infer that the researchers secured patients’ rights as the researchers used specific coding to make the research anonymous. The article reveals the results of the quantitative research. Freedman et al. (2011) report that “parallel randomized pragmatic controlled trial” was carried out (p. 1). The data obtained were analyzed with the help of statistical software SAS 9.1. Furthermore, Fisher’s exact test was also use to define the difference between secondary and primary outcomes of prolonged treatment. Admittedly, the methodology used can be regarded as comprehensive. The results obtained and conclusions drawn can be regarded relevant and well-grounded.
Anderson et al. (2008) describe safeguards to protect the participants’ rights. The researchers report that they obtained approval from fourteen jurisdictional ethics committees. More so, the committees that approved the study included 6 all-Indigenous committees. As for the methodology, the researchers carried out interviews with Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The participants commented upon their attitudes towards their health problems, towards the treatment they obtained, they also commented upon possible causes of the disease, and the correlation of their life styles and the development of the dsease. The researchers used a grounded theory to analyze the data obtained. Thus, the interviews were coded in terms of several topics. The researchers also used such statistical software as SPSS 15.0. Therefore, it is possible to note that the results obtained were relevant and well-grounded.
Critique of Results
It is necessary to note that the results of the study are clearly revealed in the article under consideration. Freedman et al. (2011) present data in a comprehensive way providing tables and graphs to illustrate the results. Besides the researchers provide a profound analysis of the results obtained. They provide insights into the difference between standard and rapid intravenous rehydration used for the treatment of children with gastroenteritis. Thus, the authors conclude that rapid rehydration is proved to be less effective than the standard one. Interestingly, the researchers compare the results obtained with the data revealed by other studies. The results of the present study are proved to be relevant as other studies verify the same hypothesis. The authors also reveal certain limitations to their study, though it is still necessary to note that the results of the study are plausible and relevant.
Anderson et al. (2008) reveal the results of their study in a comprehensive and clear way. The researchers provide specific parts of the interviews to support the conclusions made. Furthermore, the researchers used qualitative procedures as well as some quantitative methods. Therefore, it is possible to point out that the results provided are plausible. The researchers come to the conclusion that there is need in proper education among patients with end-stage kidney disease. The researchers conclude that Indigenous Australians are less informed than non-Indigenous Australians. The researchers also note low access to transplantation and absence of the adequate knowledge about the causes and effects of the disease develop ambivalent attitudes in Indigenous Australians. The article provides important insights into Indigenous Australians’ attitudes towards the disease and treatment.
Anderson, K., Devitt, J., Cunningham, J., Preece, C. & Cass, A. (2008). “All they said was my kidneys were dead”: Indigenous Australian patients’ understanding of their chronic kidney disease. Medical Journal of Australia, 189(9), 499-503.
Freedman, S.B., Parkin, P.C., Willan, A.R. & Schuh, S. (2008). Rapid versus standard intravenous rehydration in paediatric gastroenteritis: Pragmatic blinded randomised clinical trial. BMJ, 343. Web.