Article appraisal

The researchers used purposive sampling, which is a non-probabilistic sampling method. The strength of the sampling method was that it was the most appropriate sampling method due to the small number of participants who were recruited from the number of hypertensive patients attending the clinic daily. Purposive sampling allows the researcher to deliberately select participants who meet the needs of the study; thus being both cost-effective. The weakness of this study is the researchers failed to include some components which are significant in controlling blood pressure (Ajiboye et al., 2021). For example, due to financial constraints, measurements of the patient’s cholesterol level and triglycerides were not included. The other weakness was on follow-up time which was not sufficient and the

FEEDBACK FOR THIS PART:

This is all from the limitations of the study. I guess you can include, but not necessary, as it is just a list from the discussion section. Not required by the rubric.

researchers recommended enough time to be allocated in future studies. Also, the small sample size was a weakness for the study as it makes the findings ungeneralizable. Comment by Carina Piccinini: This is all from the limitations of the study. I guess you can include, but not necessary, as it is just a list from the discussion section. Not required by the rubric. Comment by Carina Piccinini: Wasn’t the sample size calculated as sufficient? Was there a loss to the sample size?

The inclusion criteria included adult female and male hypertensive patients aged 18 years and above who had to be attending the medical out-patients department (MOPD), able to speak English or Pidgin English, and willing and available to participate in the study (Ajiboye et al., 2021). The exclusion criteria included patients that were not hypertensive though in the MOPD, comorbid conditions that interfered with the patients’ participation in the study, and patients who had previously attended a diet and salt medication educational program (Ajiboye et al., 2021). Comment by Carina Piccinini: This is just a repeat of the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Were they adequate to reduce sampling bias? Ask yourselves, “If they had/had not been included, how would that have affected the results?”

The sample was not representative due to the small patient population attending the daily clinic, as only 38 patients were included in the study. The sample was not adequate as a small number of participants affects the generalizability of the findings to other hypertensive patients. The researchers did not state any decrease in the sample size during the study. All the 38 participants included in the study completed the study. The participants completed the pre-intervention and post-intervention diet and salt modification and restriction. Comment by Carina Piccinini: Ok, look at Table 2 from the study. Were the sample characteristics skewed in some way? Most of this is repeat of facts of the study. Need analysis.

Treatment fidelity assures that the intervention used in a study is reliable and consistent. The researchers did not state whether they measured treatment fidelity. However, the treatment fidelity was ensured because the researchers were able to understand that there was poor knowledge and practice of salt and diet among the hypertensive patients (Ajiboye et al., 2021). The intervention program roll-out on salt and diet modification indicated that the participants received the treatment as planned. This can also be seen in the comparison table of pre-and post-intervention knowledge on diet modification, which indicates treatment differentiation since the treatment conditions on the pre-intervention and post-intervention phases were different. Comment by Carina Piccinini: They don’t outright say it. They describe what they did, and it is up to you to determine if it was adequate. Comment by Carina Piccinini: These are not the elements of treatment fidelity. Revisit the lecture from Week 5. I will expect you to know the 3 requirements of treatment fidelity during out meeting, otherwise we are all wasting our time together.