Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Consideration on Nursing Practice

Quantitative Research Critique
Student’s Name
University Name
Course Number: Course Name
Instructor’s Name
Due Date
Quantitative Research Critique
Introduction
Quantitative research in nursing involves using a systematic approach to define the problem and articulate the subsequent solution to the issue being investigated. Diabetes prevalence has increased, partially as a result of lifestyle changes and higher obesity rates globally. Self-management training is an essential intervention to enhance self-care practices’ knowledge among diabetes patients. This article critique is based on quantitative studies discussing diabetes self-management education as an intervention to enhance diabetes-related health outcomes and life quality amongst individuals living with type 2 diabetes.
Background
Spencer et al. (2018) study’s research problem was centered on the need for improved diabetes self-management among Latino adults to enhance their health outcomes and life quality. The article’s primary objective was to examine community health worker’s (CHW) effectiveness in providing diabetes self-management education (DSME) initiative, in addition to distinct approaches to sustain HbA1c and other medical patient-centered results improvements over a 1.5-year timescale. The researchers’ purpose was to investigate CHW’s program efficacy in improving diabetes self-management amongst Latinos battling diabetes type 2. The study’s research question was centered on examining whether CHW’s DSME initiatives, together with two distinct strategies, helped improve HbA1c and patient-centered health outcomes in 1.5 years. This study is significant to nursing practice since it informs nurses to sustain improvements within diabetes outcomes through implementing a multi-pronged approach to strengthen self-care and DSME practices.
Accordingly, Paz-Pacheco et al.'s (2017) study problem was anchored on the ineffectiveness of community-centered DSME initiative within rural agricultural settings hence prompting the need to conduct this research. The article’s purpose was to investigate DSME effectiveness within rural agricultural, urban settings. The authors did not include the study objective, thus implying that the purpose statement served the same end. The study was guided by a research question that sought to investigate the efficacy of DSME program intervention in lowering A1C as well as promoting diabetes self-care practices. Its nursing significance entails empowering the efficacy of a community-centered diabetes self-management learning program geared towards improving health behavior outcomes, metabolic control, and care.
How do these two articles support the nurse practice issue you chose?
Spencer et al.’s (2018) study would answer the PICOT question by evaluating the efficacy of CHW and peer leader diabetes self-management initiative to enhance health outcomes amongst patients who have diabetes. The diabetes self-management program directly relates to the DSME intervention identified in the Intervention component of the PICOT framework. The community health worker and peer leader comparison groups also relate to the P facet of the PICOT framework, which constitutes adults living with diabetes type 2 within primary care contexts. On the other hand, Paz-Pacheco et al.'s (2017) study answer the PICOT question by evaluating DSME effectiveness as an intervention geared towards enhancing care provision and improved metabolic control for diabetes patients. The DSME program is also identified in the PICOT question. Further, it is an interactive, ongoing, and collaborative procedure entailing the individual with diabetes as well as the educator – represents the (P) component of the PICOT which includes type 2 diabetes patients within the primary care environment.
Method of Study
Spencer et al. (2018) study used a quantitative study approach where data was gathering using surveys. In this study, the researchers randomized 222 type-2 diabetes adult Latino patients with deteriorated glycemic control. The data was sourced from a federal qualified medical center with a CHW-pioneered half-year DSME initiative or improved usual care. On the contrary, Pacheco et al. (2017) used a quantitative research methodology that evaluated outcome indicators for the DSME cluster and the standard cluster that received specific guidance. Within this perspective learning-intervention trial, eighty-five adults who have diabetes type 2, randomly derived from village settings, were dispensed to the DSME program, and seventy drawn from village contexts were assigned to standard care. Accordingly, the DSME cluster also underwent a learning system provided by peer educationalists; th...