Critique of Care after Lymphoma (Caly) Trial

Critique of Care after Lymphoma (Caly) Trial: A Phase II Pilot Pragmatic Randomised Controlled Trial of a Nurse-Led Model of Survivorship Care
Name:
Institution:
Course:
Instructor:
Date
Critique of Care after Lymphoma (Caly) Trial: A Phase II Pilot Pragmatic Randomised Controlled Trial of a Nurse-Led Model of Survivorship Care
Sampling and Recruitment
The research used a sample size of 88 patients who were eligible from a centre in Western Australia (Taylor et al., 2019). However, 60 agreed to take part in the research. The research used a sample study group who was 18 years old and able to comprehend English both in writing and verbally. The ability to take part in the study involved some instances of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) (Otto et al., 2016). The two classes of participants included finished first-line intent chemotherapy or second-line curative intention using analogous stem cell therapy in the past three months. Also, the possible candidates indicated no traces of lymphoma illness on mid-therapy and after dealing with PET scans. Disqualifications for the study involved candidates who had not received chemotherapy treatments or follow up at other hospitals (Taylor et al., 2019).
As illustrated by Malterud et al., (2016), also, people with mental health disorders who could not make their own choices as well as those who had signs of secondary cancer or other medical conditions did not qualify for the research. However, as per the RCT design chosen for the study, the sample size was not appropriate. The study used a survivorship cancer nurse coordinator (CNC) with 20 years of nursing care experience on bone marrow transplant to approach cancer patients who had finished treatment (Taylor et al., 2019). An independent statistician used computer-generated random numbers to and allocated them to intervention and control categories after agreement and follow-up sessions in the ratio 1:1. According to Taylor et al., (2019), recruitment for the study began in July 2015 and ended in January 2017. By October 2017, all the people taking part in the study had finished preparing to participate in the study.
Data Collection
Demographic information collection in the research was with patients having completed treatment (Taylor et al., 2019). The data included the type of lymphoma, stage and therapy involving the date and diagnostic time. Also, the researchers collected data of comorbidities, gender-specific, seniority, weight, relationship status, age of kids, area of residence, work category, and levels of education and income (Palinkas et al., 2015). Also, the researcher collected data relating to drug and substance abuse which included their smoking status as well as alcohol consumption. The data was appropriate to the study of investigating care after lymphoma. Data collection involved the use of the Short-Form Survivor Unmet Needs Survey (SF-SUNS), the Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale (DASS21), the Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale (Mini-MAC) and the Patient Empowerment Scale (PES) (Sarkies et al., 2015). The use of SF-SUNS, DASS21 and PEC ensured the accuracy and quality of data with data lost amounting to 1.5% of the overall data.
Data Analysis and Findings
As illustrated by Taylor et al., (2019), analysis of quantitative data was done with IBM SPSS version 25. Descriptive data represented population information. Pearson Chi-square or Fisher’s Exact test were applicable in determining the degree of generalization between control and intervention groups with a record of unanswered questions (Takwoingi et al., 2017). A combined t-test on each group and area marks for each instrument were between Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3. Non-parametric Mann Whitney U test was essential in the analysis of the differences between groups on the four assessment measures at every time interval. Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) with Bonferroni post-hoc assessments was essential in explaining the changes in repeated measures over the study period. As illustrated by Smyth et al., (2017), every assessment measure was a different dependent variable model.
Covariates were considered as constant quantities including control against treatment groups, times 1, 2 and 3, with factors such as age group, sex and class of lymphoma. The sample population was a random effect on the research. The report provided a level of significance for the study because interactions between time for group and gender were recorded separately for the categories and in the eventual approach. A cross-examination of GP evaluation involved using descriptive data and qualitative information evaluation for open-ended variables (Palinkas et al., 2015). In a sample population of 88 patients, 60 agreed to take part in the study (Taylor et al., 2019).
The remaining 28 who did not qualify for the survey or did not consent to par...