Research Critiques and PICOT Statement: Diabetes

Research Critiques and PICOT Question Final Draft
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

Research Critiques and PICOT Question Final Draft
Introduction
Diabetes has become a significant public issue due to its epidemiological trends and associated complications. Green-Morris (2019) indicates that it leads to substantial health burdens while disproportionately affecting minority groups. The prevalence of this disease has demonstrated its gravity, considering that affected individuals are at increased risk of suffering from diverse foot problems, including tissue destruction, ulceration, and infections (Green-Morris, 2019). This problem has prompted a comprehensive exploration of appropriate strategies for averting adverse consequences, underlining the value of daily foot care for diabetes patients (Chao et al., 2018). Despite the wealth of evidence supporting this approach and demonstrating the benefits individuals receive, Coffey et al. (2018) indicate that many patients oppose it for various reasons, including personal life disruptions. This concern leads to arguments that the method may be a weak option for many patients because of non-compliance with its recommended practices (Chao & Spry, 2018). Thus, this observation led to the question, in adult patients with diabetes and asymptomatic feet, how effective is daily foot care compared to no daily foot care in preventing foot complications?
Background of Studies
The article by Chao and Spry (2018) explores the effectiveness of foot care as a preventative option for diabetes patients. As a result, its objective was to determine the role of these individuals’ health outcomes. It used three key research questions, including one addressing the clinical effectiveness of foot care prevention efforts for the patients, the cost-effectiveness of the approach, and the evidence-based guidelines for providing care for patients diagnosed with asymptomatic feet. This article would be significant because its findings can assist the healthcare providers in determining the cost and clinical effectiveness of diabetes foot care. Coffey et al.’s (2018) article purposed to investigate how the findings of various studies related to diabetes people’s experiences and perceptions of diabetes foot altercation could inform improvements for managing ulceration impacts or preventing its occurrence. Thus, the main objective was to synthesize the diverse perceptions through diverse study questions. Findings from this research remain significant to nursing because they improve nurses’ understanding of the aspects that lead to patients’ engagement in the care and highlight intervention targets for promoting such behaviors.
The study by Green-Morris (2019) purposed to assess the effectiveness of using primary foot education to hone foot care know-how among diabetic patients. The primary objectives of the researcher were to improve the patients’ foot care knowledge, boost their health, minimize all related costs, bridge the knowledge-practice gap, and avail shared learning opportunities. As a result, the findings of Green-Morris’ (2019) work would be significant in identifying strategies for developing and initiating education interventions targeting foot care basics and foot ulceration incidence prevention. Finally, Oni (2019) systematically reviews literature related to diabetes foot for diabetes foot ulceration prevention. The publication’s key objective was to identify literature gaps and inform research for appropriate recommendations. Findings from this study bring significance to nursing by establishing a link between diabetes foot ulceration reduction and self-foot care.
How Do These Four Articles Support the Nursing Practice Problem You Chose?
The findings from the four articles will be fundamental in supporting the foot care practice and the PICOT question of this study. For instance, this study will use the findings by Green-Morris (2019) to demonstrate the efficacy of the foot care education approach for diabetic patients. The emphasis placed by the author on the value of foot care education on patients’ quality of life illustrates that the nursing practice it explores is a critical approach for improving the patients’ diabetic foot ulceration problems. In the same context, Oni’s (2019) article results will illustrate the improvements in self-care, making foot care an effective strategy for diabetes patients. The recommendations and guidelines outlined by Chao and Spry (2018) also align with the findings of the first two articles because they support caring for the foot in diverse ways, including avoidance of particular activities, inappropriate footwear, and barefoot walking. However, it will be fundamental to recognize the flagged aspects by Coffey et al. (2018) that a significant proportion of diabetes patients consider foot care activities disruptive of their everyday lives. Perhaps, this aspect would gradually improve, and perception shift through the education recommended by Oni (2018). As a result, these findings will inform the PICOT question to demonstrate daily foot care emerges as effective compared to no daily foot care in adult patients.
The four articles focus on adult populations, similar to the groups targeted by the PICOT question. Moreover, they all explore foot care interventions from an education program and daily care, which compares with the central one suggested in the question for this study. As a result, these similarities make it easy for researchers to apply their findings in informing the current research.
Method of Studies
The four articles fall into two distinctive categories, qualitative and quantitative. In this context, the two quantitative journal articles by Green-Morris (2019) and Oni (2019) rely on numerical data, while the qualitative ones by Coffey et al. (2018) and Chao and Spry (2018) rely on personal accounts of their study populations to inform their conclusions. Two of the quantitative ones also differ slightly in the approaches employed by their respective researchers. For instance, the article by Green-Morris (2019) applies a pretest-posttest survey to collect its data. This approach represents research that involves baseline data and follow-up data collected after the implementation of a treatment. Oni (2019) exploits a systematic review tactic that analyses data from secondary sources. Both qualitative articles by Coffey et al. (2018) and Chao and Spry (2018) comply with the standard research protocols in their category because they used secondary data to assess and make their findings.
The quantitative research method increases the credibility of its findings due to ...