Critique
The article by Lynch et al. (2019) is entitled “Randomized Trial of a Lifestyle Intervention for Urban Low-Income African Americans with Type 2 Diabetes” and appeared in JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine. The article by Protheroe et al. (2016) is entitled “The Feasibility of Health Trainer Improved Patient Self-Management in Patients with Low Health Literacy and Poorly Controlled Diabetes: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial” and appeared in Journal of Diabetes Research. This paper will critique the two articles by evaluating information pertaining to their titles, abstracts, introductions, background sections and the authors’ discussion of their respective studies’ significance. Information pertaining to the studies’ statement of problem, research questions or hypotheses, literature review, theoretical framework, ethical considerations and research design will be evaluated as well. The criteria used to critique the articles come from that provided by Polit and Beck (2017).

Title

According to Polit and Beck’s (2017) criteria for a well-written title, neither article had a sufficiently formulated title. The title by Protheroe et al. (2016) contained the primary concept of the study—namely, feasibility of health trainer improved patient self-management, and it also identified the population and design of the study—but it did not define the length of the study. Lynch et al. (2019) also failed to identify the length of the study in their title; however, like Protheroe et al. (2016), they did include the primary concept of lifestyle intervention for urban low-income African Americans with type 2 diabetes, and they did identify the population and design of the study.

Abstract

Protheroe et al. (2016) provided an unstructured abstract in fewer than 250 words. Sufficient information was given for the reader to decipher whether the article would be applicable or relevant. As Polit and Beck (2017) note, an abstract should be fewer than 250 words and contain a brief description of the study. It should also include the research questions, what methods were used, and the researcher found, and the abstract given by Protheroe et al. (2016) met all those conditions. The same goes for the one given by Lynch et al. (2019). Sufficient keywords were provided by Lynch et al. (2019) to search their article on databases. However, no keywords were provided by Protheroe et al. (2016).

Introduction, Background and Significance

Funding was provided for both articles. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit Programme (Grant Reference no. PB-PG-0110-20033) provided funding for the study by Protheroe et al. (2016). The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01DK092271 and the National Institute for Heart Lung and Blood (NHLBI), grant number 1P50HL105189-01, provided funding for the study by Lynch et al. (2019). Both sources appeared to be reputable.

Background and...…a randomized control trial for their research design. Lynch et al. (2019) did the same. According to Polit and Beck (2017), “a control group is a key part of large trials, randomization helps to ensure that no bias affects the selection of people for the control group, and a study will publish baseline measurements for both groups to allow the reader direct comparison” (p. 10). Protheroe et al. (2016) abided by the same criteria: their randomized control trial was comparing a group of patients that had a lay health trainer (LHT) with a group of patients that received the usual care for diabetes education. The control group in their study received usual medical care provided to patients with their condition.

Lynch et al. (2019) also abided by the criteria described by Polit and Beck (2017): the randomized control trial they conducted was comparing a group of African American patients that would receive Lifestyle Improvement through Food and Exercise (LIFE) intervention. The control group received conventional Type 2 diabetes education which consisted of two group educational classes.

Both studies thus used a sufficiently non-biased research design (level II) with a randomized control trial in which they could conduct a test and obtain data. The study could be judged to be valid and reliable: they both measure what they purport to measure, and each provides sufficient design description that it could be duplicated by other researchers.