Quantitative Critique:Chemotherapy Effects in Women with Breast Cancer

Article Critique
Your Name
Subject and Section
Professor’s Name
Date
Introduction
Article critique is essential in validating the research results. This process requires a holistic and detailed analysis of the research, from the objectives to the conclusion. This paper aims to critique an article concerning a prospective study on the life changes of individuals with breast cancer. Specifically, the paper shall examine in detail the introduction, review of literature, theoretical framework used, methodology, results and discussion, abstract, implications in the practice of nursing, and future research implications of Oh & Cho’s (2020) research paper entitled “Changes in Fatigue, Psychological Distress, and Quality of Life After Chemotherapy in Women with Breast Cancer: A Prospective Study.”
Review of Introduction
Problem Statement
The introduction of the research paper is brief, and most of the information was about the problem statement. The researchers discussed the implications of chemotherapy in the life of women with breast cancer, stating that it results in significant mortality and critically affects the lives of the patients while fighting against the disease. Specifically, it most commonly results in anxiety, depression, and fatigue, leading to a 42.5% to 57% prevalence of the latter two in patients with breast cancer. The researchers also discussed the mechanism behind the fatigue and the pathophysiology behind the clustering of symptoms related to chemotherapy (Oh & Cho, 2020).
Purpose
The objectives of the study are as follows: 1) To recognize the modifications and its interconnections with the anxiety-depression-fatigue symptom cluster during the course of the cancer treatment, beginning from the initial treatment and through the follow-up; 2) To recognize the impact on the patient’s quality of life of psychological distress and fatigue (Oh & Cho, 2020).
Research Questions
The researchers ask, what is the impact of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients’ life compared from the initial assessment, one to three days before the start of the study, and after six months of follow-up?
Hypotheses / Null hypotheses
The primary hypothesis is that there is a significant adverse change in the quality of life of breast cancer patients when the initial assessment and the 6-month follow-up results are compared. Conversely, the null hypothesis states that there are no significant changes in the quality of life of breast patients from the initial assessment compared to the 6-month follow-up results (Oh & Cho, 2020).
Review of Literature
The review of the literature was not included in the research paper. Therefore, the analysis of this area is based on the summary of the review of the literature found in the introduction. The researchers were able to explain the primary factors that impact the quality of life of breast cancer patients. Based on this, the researchers utilized primary sources, all of which are scholarly articles. Moreover, the researchers stated statistics related to the study.
However, the articles used are outdated, which dates from 2005 to 2012. Ideally, the literature review should contain information within the five-year range to ensure that there is only a narrow instead of a comprehensive knowledge gap on the topic. Since the literature used dates more than five years ago, it is not valid to say that the paper-based its assumptions on recent information.
Review of Theoretical Framework
The researchers utilized the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) model by Ferrans et al. The framework aims to assess the vital factors that affect life, including the biological phenomena, functional status, the patient’s view of their current situation, and prognosis, and the causal relationship among these three. The model could not explain the interconnection between the participants’ physical, cognitive, and emotional symptoms (Oh & Cho, 2020). Based on Polit & Beck’s (2010) explanation of an evidence-based practice model, this model focuses on participants’ perspectives, and the researchers interpret the results. This type of framework is essential in shaping or systematizing the theoretical concepts that encircle the study.
Review of Methodology
Design
This quantitative prospective study aims to reassess the patients after six months of follow-up (Oh & Cho, 2020). Polit & Beck (2010) discussed that this is non-experimental research. However, it is a correlational study called a cohort. A prospective cohort study aims to prove or disprove the hypothesis that the participants will or will not suffer from a disease entity or its elements in the future. Samples or assessments are done initially to have baseline results, and these will be compared after the time frame to analyze the presumed effects.
Population
The researchers recruited participants from a cancer hospital in Korea, and 55 agreed to partake in the research. Only 50 could finish the study due to circumstances such as death and inability to finish the questionnaire (Oh & Cho, 2020).
The researchers were able to choose the appropriate population for the study, and they were able to accurately describe the inclusion and exclusion criteria. However, since the sample size is small, the participants may not represent the said population in Korea (Polit & Beck, 2010). Due to this, the researchers adjusted the power of the study to only 90% (Oh & Cho, 2020).
Sampling Methods
The researcher utilized nonprobability sampling, which means it is more difficult to generalize the results than probability sampling methods. Specifically, they utilized consecutive nonprobability sampling, where they included all of the eligible participants who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Polit & Beck, 2010). This is understandable because there is a limited number of breast cancer participants who are undergoi...