In the article “Bare below the elbows: does this policy affect hand washing efficacy and reduce bacterial colonisation?” published July 2010, the authors Wijwardena & Greatorex main focus was to establish whether dress code affects bacterial colonisation before and after hand-washing. Research was conducted using questionnaire and results were collected in the form of quantitative data. The result shows that there were no significant difference between BBE and NB (Mann-Whitney, P<0.05) before hand-washing, hand-washing reduced colony count by (t-test, P<0.05) and that there were no significant difference (Mann-Whitney, P<0.05) after hand-washing.
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!Find out more
The authors’ use of a critical abstract in regards to the main findings, results, conclusion, subjects and methods gives a detailed overview of the research study, allowing the reader to assess and understand whether the research is relevant without having to examine the whole article (Galdon, Graves and Kelly, 2011). McNiff and Whitehead (2010) states that it is important for an abstract to always be succinct to allow the reader to gain an insight into the research and its importance (Chatburn, 2011). In addition, the abstract is clear, concise and free from jargons making it easy for the reader to understand and not become confused about the content of the research.
Secondly, the complexity of the results collected, charted and plotted on the table and graph was simplified, making it easier for the reader to interpret and make sense of the findings. In addition, the results gathered also represent the research as a whole, for it clearly reflects the aim and objective of the study. Hence the research is valid and reliable (Wood and Ross-Keer, 2011).
However, the research is plausible as to whether it can be applied into practice and good enough to be represented to the targeted population. This is due to the small sample size, which was sixty-sixty doctors, as a larger sample size can estimate population parameters (Sim and Wright, 2000). And also, there was an ethical aspect of the research which give cause for concern, as the authors clearly states that the participants were not give advance warning about the study and was conducted throughout the working day. This suggests that the participants did not give informed consent, as it was the authors’ obligation to fully inform participants of the study before carrying out the research (Cottrell and Mckenzie, 2011).
In the article “Effects of ‘bare below the elbows’ policy on hand contamination of 92 hospital doctors in a district general hospital” published in December 2009, the authors Willis-Owen, Subramanian, Kumari and Houlihan-Burne, main purpose of the research was to establish whether the hands of doctors who are bare below elbows (BBE) compliant are cleaner than those who wore traditional attire (non-BBE). A prospective cross-sectional observational study was carried out and the result was presented using qualitative method. In the author’s main findings, there were no significant difference in between those doctors who were BBE and those that were not.
The aim of the research was clear and precise, as the authors avoided the use of jargons. In support to this, Schneider, Whitehead, LoBiondo-Wood and Haber (2013) report that, aims of a research should be clear, broad, achievable and unambiguous as this guides the reader on how to interpret and analyse the data from the result. This of significance as it outlines the author’s overall intentions for carrying out the research; as a result, the reader is given a clear outline on whether the research is of value and worthwhile (Taylor, Kermode and Roberts, 2006).
Furthermore, the use of secondary sources used within this research to support findings, such as works from Fierer et al, informs the reader that there have been similar work done by other researchers (Brockopp and Hastings-Tolsma, 2003).This was also accompanied by a referencing system which clearly states all the literatures integrated, along with the dates so that the reader has enough information to find the original sources used within the study (Collins, 2010). This aids the reader to consider whether the literatures used were current and relevant to the study, and also gain an insight into how the authors went about conducting their research.
On the contrary, the results gathered failed to establish the cause-effect of the research (Balakrishnan, 2010) of establishing the effects of BBE policy on hand contamination, which therefore lacks reliability (Wood and Ross-Keer, 2011). Consequently, the reader is unable to apply the findings provided into practice as it lacks logic and relevance. The authors’ use of language to analyse results in discussion was substandard, as they went to discuss patients’ preferences which was confusing, irrelevant and misleading.
The article “The Feedback Intervention Trial (FIT)-Improving Hand Hygiene Compliance in UK Healthcare Workers: A Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial”, published October 2012, authors Fuller et al used randomised control trial to collect quantitative results. The main findings included all 16 trusts were randomised, 33 wards implemented intervention (11 Intensive therapy units, 22 acute care elderly), mixed effects regression analysis (all wards) accounting for confounders, temporal trends, ward type and fidelity to intervention (forms/month used).
The authors carried out their study in a randomised control trial (RCT). RCT according to Andrew and Halcomb (2009) is a study whereby participants are divided into treatment and control group to determine the effectiveness of a policy and practice interventions. This was appropriate within this research as the number of participants that took part sixty wards and the result obtained can be used to represent the general population. Hence in quantitative research, Chow, Shoa and Wang (2003) states that it is important to have a larger sample size, for the research to be valid and reliable (Solomon, Cavanaugh and Draine, 2009) and assures accuracy and integrity (This means that the reader is able apply theory to practice obtained through the research due to the credibility of the research.
In contrast, the research lacked purpose and an aim, as it does not address a significant problem that prompted research (Monsen and Horn, 2008). As a result fails to inform the reader about what the study is trying to achieve by carrying out the research. For this reason the research fails to grab the reader’s attention as there is no clear reason as to why the research is of significance.
The authors illustrated that informed consent was established before the research was conducted. This is important within any research as this demonstrates that the participants were content to take part in the research and that ethical values were upheld. This is important to the reader as this shows that
Cohen, L., Manion, L & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. (7thed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Monsen, E. R. & Horn, L V. (2008). Research: Successful approaches. (3rded.). USA: Diana Faulhaber.
Andrew, S. & Halcomb, E .J. (2009). Mixed methods research for nursing and the health sciences. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Cottrell, R. R. & McKenzie, J. F. (2011). Health promotion education research methods: Using the five-chapter thesis/dissertation model. (2nded.). Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, LLC.
Sim, J. & Wright, C. (2000). Research in health care. Cheltenham: Stanley Thomes (Publishers) Ltd.
Wood, M. J. & Ross-Kerr, J. C. (2011). Basic steps in planning nursing research: From question to proposal. (7thed.). Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Schneider, Z., Whitehead, D., Biondo-Wood, G. L. & Haber, J. (2013). Nursing and midwifery research 4e: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice. (4thed.). Chatswood: Elsevier.
Balakrishnan, N. (2010). Methods and applications of statistics in the life and health sciences. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kermode, S. Taylor, B. & Roberts, K. (2006). Obtaining approval and support for your project. In B. Taylor., S. Kermode. & K. Roberts (Eds.), Research in nursing and health care: Evidence for practice. (pp. 131-169). Australia: Cengage Learning.
Chatburn, R. L. (2011). Handbook for health care research. (2nded.). Sudbury: Jones and Baartlett Publishers.
Collin, H. (2010). Creative research: The theory and practice of research for the creative. Switzerlan: AVA Publishing SA.
Brockopp, D. Y. & Hastings-Tolsma. (2003). Fundamentals of nursing research. (3rded.). Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett.
McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. (2010). You and your action research project. (3rded.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Rees, C. (2010). Evaluting and appraising evidence to underpin nursing practice. In K. Holland., C. Rees (Eds.), Nursing: evidence based practice skills. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Galdon, R. J., Graves, W. R. & Kelly, J. M. (2011). Getting published in the life science. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
Solomon, P., Cavanaugh, M. M. & Draine, J. (2009). Randomized controlled trials: Design and implementation for community based psychosocial interventions. Oxford: Oxford University Press Inc.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on UKEssays.com then please: