The purpose of this paper is to critique the design, sample and ethical issues used in the selected research studies. The article “The Experience of Patients Undergoing Awake Craniotomy” is a qualitative study. The overall purpose of the study is as Palese, Skrap, Fachin, Visioli, and Zannini, (2008) states, “Although different techniques are used, very little has been documented about how the patients feels, what they think about, or how they approach this type of surgery with anesthetic” (p. 166). On the other hand, the article “The effects of Crossed Leg on Blood Pressure Measurement” is a quantitative study.
This study’s objective was “to determine if crossing of a leg at the knee during blood pressure measurement has an effect on the patient’s blood pressure reading” (Foster-Fitzpatrick, Ortiz, Sibilano, Marcantonio, and Braun, 1999, para. 2). Research Design In the quantitative study the researcher chose to use the experimental cross over design, which is where the two participant groups were compared to each other and then switch. I felt this was an appropriate design because it allowed measurements to be taken on both groups that are then able to serve as their own controls. In this study, group one served as the control group.
They had their blood pressure taken with their feet on the floor. While group two served as the test group. This group had their blood pressure taken with their legs crossed. Then both groups are compared to each other. In the second portion of the study the roles were reversed. On the other hand the qualitative study uses descriptive phenomenology. Polit and Beck (2012) states, “In descriptive phenomenology, which seeks to describe lived experiences, researchers strive to bracket out preconceived views and to intuit the essence of the phenomenon by remaining open to meanings attributed to it by those who have experienced it” (p. 12). The study was performed to describe the experience of individuals undergoing an awake craniotomy.
This was done by interviewing participants at various points before and after surgery. Their responses were then measured and trends were generalized on a chart shown in the article. The study did not include a control group so the data is purely descriptive. This is opposed to comparative method as used in the quantitative study. An example of this would have been if a control group was undergoing conventional surgery by sing anesthesia. Sample Methodology In the qualitative study the sample methodology used was convenience sampling. The sample size of the study was eleven women and ten men for a total of twenty-one patients. The ages ranged from twenty to sixty-three years. Even though this study involved a procedure not commonly performed the sample size was of an appropriate amount with almost even distribution of gender.
Twelve participants had mapping done on the language area and nine had mapping done the movement area of the brain. The inclusion criteria were patients (a) with a brain neoplasm who were awaiting surgery under local anesthesia, (b) who were older than 18 years, (c) without language or cognitive disabilities, and (d) who were ready to collaborate and accept an interview” (Palese et al. , 2008, p. 167). In the quantitative study researchers also used convenience sampling to select one hundred hypertensive male subjects. The first group of fifty had their blood pressure take with the feet flat on the floor first and then had their blood pressure taken with their legs crossed.
The second group was the remaining fifty had their blood pressure taken with their legs crossed and then again with their legs flat on the floor. I believe they could have improved the study’s sample by including women in the study. The inclusion criteria were patients who had a diagnosis of hypertension and being treated with antihypertensive medications. “Patients were excluded from this study if they had a history of peripheral vascular disease, lower extremity surgery, amputation of any lower extremities, or any condition that would interfere with lower extremity positioning” (Foster-Fitzpatrick et al. , 1999, para. 9).
On the day of the study 16 participants were excluded because they failed to take their antihypertensive medications. So 84 participants remained and the study was conducted. Ethics The location for the qualitative study was the neurosurgical unit of the Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital (Udine) in Italy conducted by a nursing group. Before the study was conducted approval was obtained from the local health service and also the university headquarters. Approval was given before any patients were approached and informed consent obtained. Even though the study was not reviewed by an IRB I feel that there was no major ethical concerns.
Their privacy was respected by each individual remaining anonymous throughout the study. One researcher was used to interview participants who have had training in conducting the interviews and was also supervised during the process. I feel by doing this it would have made participants more comfortable in relaying more details on how they felt has they built rapport with that individual. The quantitative study took place by selecting subjects from various outpatient clinics in an inner-city acute-care veterans’ hospital in Chicago. Potential subjects were identified and verbal consent was obtained for participation in this study.
Again, even though the study was not reviewed by an IRB I feel that there was no major ethical concerns. In both studies the researchers that conducted the studies held sufficient degree titles that allowed them to be considered experts in this area. The studies were of no cost to the participants. No vulnerable groups were involved or no one person was mistreated in any of the study. While the qualitative study may have caused psychological discomfort by reliving the experience with the questions they were given sufficient time to collect their composer and continue with the interview if they felt.
In conclusion, meaningful evidence and information was gained. Both studies showed appropriate research designs with no major ethical concerns. While both studies used the convenience sampling methodology I left that the quantitative study needed more sampling variety. I believe that including women in the study would have depicted a proper reflection of the population. Both studies served as good examples of evidence practice that could be applied in the clinical settings.