Health Study in Cancer Patients

Research Critique

Problem Statement

The study seeks to address the problem of unmet health needs for colorectal cancer patients. Evidence shows that colorectal cancer patients often lack nurse counselling support to effectively manage symptoms and side effects (Reiter et al., 2021). Further, despite weight loss being a common occurrence among colorectal patients, most of them lack access to nutritional support, resulting in poor health outcomes. With the growing incidence of cancer globally, it is important to develop interventions aimed at addressing these patient care deficits. Thus, the problem the study was conducted to resolve is an important one for nurses to explore because it seeks to address a real and major health issue that nurses should try to address through the application of evidence-based practice.

Study Purpose

The purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of nutritional and oncology nurse counselling as an intervention for improving nutritional behaviour and side effects management among colorectal cancer patients (Reiter et al., 2021). This is significant to nursing because colorectal cancer is the third most common type of cancer, and patients often face a long and difficult treatment journey. One of the most important things that nurses can do to support these patients is to help them maintain a healthy diet. Good nutrition can help to improve survival rates and quality of life, as well as reducing the risk of side effects from treatment. Nutritional counselling from a nurse who is specially trained in oncology can be an invaluable assistance for patients striving to make healthy choices. Oncology nurses are also uniquely positioned to provide support with managing side effects from treatment, such as fatigue, pain, and nausea. By helping patients to better understand and cope with these side effects, oncology nurses can have a significant impact on their overall wellbeing. In conclusion, the effectiveness of nutritional and oncology nurse counselling is significant to nursing due to the vital role it plays in supporting colorectal cancer patients.

Research Question

The research question was: “What differences are there in self-management among colorectal patients in a control group and two subsets of interventions groups – one which receives in and outpatient nurse counselling support services and another that receives only in-patient counselling support?” (Reiter et al., 2021, p. 1790). The hypothesis was that systematic nutritional counselling and in and out-patient nurse counselling significantly improved self-management in nutritional behaviour and side effects management among colorectal cancer patients.

Study Variables

The independent variables were systematic nutritional counselling and oncology nurse counselling. The dependent variable was patient self-management regarding nutritional behaviour and side effects management.

Conceptual/Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework was based on Antonovsky’s salutogenesis and Collins and Rochfort’s empowerment, the goal being to promote autonomous decision-making on the part of the patient. The framework was applied via targeted knowledge transfer and practical guidance. For the intervention, participating patients received instruction and resources to support them. Other than this application of a framework, no theory was specified as being a guide for the study. A structured nurse-led counseling concept was used for evaluating the in and out-patient counseling services.

Review of Related Literature

The literature does support the need for this study. The research cited in the literature review section indicated specifically that more appropriate nursing interventions were needed to address the numerous issues apparent in the literature indicating deficits in care. The authors reasoned that a complex intervention should be tried as an experiment to address the different aspects of that care deficit.

Study Design

When conducting research, scientists often face the decision of whether to use quantitative or qualitative methods. Both approaches have their own strengths and weaknesses, and the best method for any given project depends on the nature of the question being asked. Quantitative methods are well suited for measuring factors that can be counted or otherwise expressed numerically. This approach is often used to test hypotheses about cause-and-effect relationships. Qualitative methods, on the other hand, are better suited for exploring phenomena in a more naturalistic setting. This approach is often used to generate new hypotheses about how people think and behave. In general, quantitative methods are more suited for testing existing ideas, while qualitative methods are more suited for generating new ones.

This study by Reiter et al. (2021) adopted a quantitative design dealing with statistics gathered from the intervention. As quantitative research focuses on collecting data that is obtained through surveys or experiments, the approach aligned with this particular study, seeing that the data collection method is through experimental intervention. The data was analyzed to answer a specific research question. This study’s design therefore fits the purpose and question of the study. The researchers were not conducting exploratory research, which is often done by qualitative methods, but rather they wanted to test a specific hypothesis with known variables, using a control group and an experimental group. They wanted to look at specific hard data and test it for correlations to see what affects the intervention had on the experimental group vs. the control group. Thus, the quantitative design made perfect sense in this case.

Sample and Setting

The setting for the experiment was two general surgery wards in a hospital in Germany. The sample was thus a convenience sample. The setting was appropriate for the study. In this study, participants were assigned to either the treatment or control group based on their date of treatment (Reiter et al., 2021). Those who received treatment between May 2015 and august 2016 were assigned to the intervention group, while those treated between January 2014 and April 2015 were assigned to the control group (Reiter et al., 2021). The control group consisted of 75 participants and the experimental group consisted of 114 participants. This is not an enormous sample for a study, but for an experimental study it is appropriate enough.

Identification and Control of Extraneous Variables

In any scientific study, it is important to identify and control for extraneous variables (Rosenberg, 2017). These are variables that could potentially influence the results of the study, but are not directly related to the research question. For example, in a study on the effect of different fertilizers on plant growth, temperature would be an extraneous variable. To control for extraneous variables, researchers tend to use a variety of methods, such as randomization, stratification, and blinding. By taking these measures, scientists can be confident that the results of their study are not influenced by factors other than the treatments being tested. In the study by Reiter et al. (2021) there was no discussion of controlling for extraneous variables. However, the questionnaire used for collecting data did give the researchers a wide spectrum of variables to look at for the study.

Study Instruments/Tools

The study instruments and tools were adequate and appropriate for the study. When designing a quantitative study, researchers must carefully consider the type of data they hope to collect. In some cases, a questionnaire may be the best tool for gathering information from participants. However, there are a few key factors to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to use a questionnaire. First, it is important to consider the types of questions that will be asked. If the questions are largely factual in nature (e.g., How old are you?), then a questionnaire may be an appropriate choice. However, if the researcher is seeking more opinion-based data (e.g., How do you feel about X issue?), then an interview or focus group may be a better option. Second, the researcher should consider the size of the target population. If the study is focused on a large number of people, it may not be practical to conduct interviews or focus groups with all of them. In this case, a questionnaire may be the best way to gather data from a large number of people in a relatively short amount of time. Thus, in this study, the sample size and factual nature of the questions asked made a questionnaire a suitable tool for the study. Finally, there is also the consideration that the researcher should think about how much time and resources are available for data collection. If time is limited, or if there are budget constraints, then using a questionnaire may be the most efficient way to collect data from participants (Baker, 2003).