week 5 .0
BSN-16
week308042019.docxWeek 3 08042019
Hello Professor and class
The article that I selected for this assignment is a single subject study exploring the use of evidence-based approaches for managing pain in palliative care (Unné & Rosengren, 2014). According to the authors, pain is an unpleasant experience that requires the optimal selection of adequate management approaches that are sophisticated and flexible (Unné & Rosengren, 2014). This objective can be attained by incorporating the expertise of interdisciplinary teams. The study explored the variations in the techniques of evaluating pain in a palliative care facility located in northeast Sweden. It used quantitative methods that involved the acquisition of empirical and quantifiable data. This information was analyzed and interpreted to develop generalizations regarding the pain management approaches. The research study design used in the article was quasi-experimental. It included different comparison groups but did not involve random assignment (Campbell & Stanley, 2015).
In the representation for the article, the nomenclature X represents the intervention, O expresses the observation and data collection, and R stands for random assignment to a study group. Pain assessment involves the application of unique approaches and scales such as the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). The evidence-based intervention (X) used in the study involved the use of numbers instead of descriptive words to enhance, clarify, and unify the process of documenting pain ratings. O included the completion of pain assessment using the recommended evidence-based rating tools during the last days of the patient’s life. The study team developed nine questions to assess the experiences of physicians with managing pain in palliative care (Unné & Rosengren, 2014). The team took two weeks to compile the responses to questions that served as the foundation for the improvement effort. R was not used for the study, although the improvement project included two teams operating in the healthcare district.
Non-probability sampling was used for the study. The sample included two teams consisting of 22 staff members that work as palliative care providers within the patients’ homes. This sample was selected from a population of 125 employees working in the healthcare district (Unné & Rosengren, 2014). The sample was chosen from nine teams consisting of different healthcare professionals that operated in two areas.
One of the advantages of non-probability sampling is that it is more cost and time effective than probability sampling. The technique is easy to use and is sufficient when working with small populations (Sharma, 2017). The major shortcoming of the method is that it is challenging to determine how well the sample is representative of the population. This aspect results from the difficulty in determining the confidence intervals and margins of error (Sharma, 2017).
The research study groups in the article did not undergo random assignment because the inquiry did not include experimental and treatment groups. The two research teams that participated in the study documented pain among the patients using the recommended scales.
Random assignment was not used for the study. This aspect increased the chances for biases and errors because the sample may not be representative of the population (Nguyen, Collins, Lamy, Devereaux, Daurès, Landais, & Le Manach, 2017). It also made it hard to generalize and validate the findings.
References
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (2015). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Ravenio Books.
Nguyen, T. L., Collins, G. S., Lamy, A., Devereaux, P. J., Daurès, J. P., Landais, P., & Le Manach, Y. (2017). Simple randomization did not protect against bias in smaller trials. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 84, 105-113.
Sharma, G. (2017). Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. International Journal of Applied Research, 3(7), 749-752.
Unné, A., & Rosengren, K. (2014). Using numbers creates value for health professionals: a quantitative study of pain management in palliative care. Pharmacy, 2(3), 205-221. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4787/2/3/205/pdf
This is the respond from the professor question
Professor question: Collapse Subdiscussion Jo Podjaski
Jul 24, 2019Jul 24 at 11:26pm
Yahima,
Good article. Okay, sounds like your assessment on quasi-experimental is logical. There were different comparison groups without random assignment. The intervention was the use of numbers to document pain ratings. Was this the numerical pain scale? I would assume so. The tool is the intervention and the data collection were the EBP pain rating tools. So there was a patient side and a provider side to this study in terms of assessment it sounds like. The second part, the provider part, sounds like qualitative in terms of collecting data on experiences of providers managing palliative pain. No random assignment either, since 2 teams were used. So they were designated groups. Yes, then this is also non-probability sampling because the researcher wants to only look at a certain population. They consisted of 9 teams from a population of 125 employees, have I got this right?
Again, non-probability is easier to use since you have the set population at hand, but there can be bias too as well as questionable population representation.
Great discussion,
Dr. Jo
Respond
rom Week 3: Elements of Quantitative Research: Design and Sampling
Jul 28, 2019 4:21pm
Hello professor
I really appreciate you commended in my post. Thank you so much for your feedback and recommendations. I assessed the study model and determined that it is quasi-experimental. The rationale for the conclusion was that two groups participated in the study, and the random assignment was not used. The intervention involved using EBP tools to rate the severity of their pain and improve pain management in palliative care. The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) was adopted as the EBP tool for rating pain among the patients (Unné & Rosengren, 2014). This approach was employed to replace the verbal description of pain. The providers tested the EBP tools on the patients and concluded that the NRS generated sufficient, transparent, and unified pain ratings. I agree with your statement that the second part on data collection resembles the qualitative method. However, I am convinced that it is a quantitative method because it focused on generating numerical data that can only be analyzed using quantitative methods. Two teams were used to test the EBP tools, but randomization was not used when selecting the members. The research teams consisted of healthcare professionals and cannot be considered as designated groups. Non-probability sampling was used, and it proved easy because of the availability of a study population. However, this technique could result in unrepresentative samples and biased results.
Thank you
Reference
Unné, A., & Rosengren, K. (2014). Using numbers creates value for health professionals: a quantitative study of pain management in palliative care. Pharmacy, 2(3), 205-221. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4787/2/3/205/pdf
