references utilized in this article there could have been more useful information provided from these sources. In addition, considering the fact of the redundancy of this research compared to the previous research it would have been an improvement to look at another alternative to decreasing ETS. Though the title of the research would lead one to believe that this will in fact be about ways to decrease ETS, this is not what is truly portrayed in the research in the beginning. The reader is given information as to how much money ETS is costing medically due to health issues and infant related deaths, but very little discusses the impact that breast feeding has. It appears in the beginning that the researchers want to prove that children should be breastfeed and that mothers should not smoke because the infants that are breastfed are protected from the health problems associated with ETS. However little information is given neither in the intro nor in the review of literature to show what impact there really is for a child that is breastfed by a mother that does not smoke, in relationship to ETS from second hand sources i.e. cars, malls etc. Another weakness, which I have already discussed several times through this critique, is the sample size. This was a rather small sample and the ways in which the control and test group were handled may not have been the best methods possible. Ultimately, this research left me wondering why one would want to conduct research to confirm the already obvious, while offering no additional information to the resolution or problem at hand.
Flanders-Stepans, M., Wilhelm, S.L., & Dolence, K. (2006). Smoking Hygiene: Reducing Infant Exposure to Tobacco. Biological research for Nursing, 8(2), 104-114.