The article entitled “Self-Management Intervention for Long-Term Indwelling Urinary Catheter Users” by Wilde, McMahon, McDonald and Chen (2015) is a credible quantitative study that focuses on infection stemming from catheter use. Specifically, the study examines self-management approaches for home-patients. The article is well-written, concise, grammatically correct, and avoids the use of slang or common jargon. It is very well laid out and organized with headings and subheadings used to divide the text into easily readable sections. The authors of the study have university and/or professional nursing backgrounds, which indicates a high degree of knowledge in this particular field of catheter studies: Wilde and McMahon are professors at the School of Nursing at the University of Rochester, Chen is a professor in the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and McDonald is a professor at the Center for Home Care Policy and Research at the Visiting Nurse Service of New York. Their combined backgrounds are appropriate for addressing the needs of patients engaged in catheter self-management methods. As Grove, Gray and Burns (2015) point out, it is helpful to know the qualifications of the authors of a study in order to assess their credibility. Additionally, the title is clear, of a sufficient length (Coughlan, Cronin and Ryan (2007) state that the title should be between 10 and 15 words—this one is 8 unless one counts the hyphenated words separately, in which case it is 10), and the title states the main idea of the paper without ambiguity. The abstract offers a clear overview of the study and identifies the research problem, the sample, the methodology used, the findings that were made and the recommendations that were given. The purpose of the study is clearly understood and the research problem is identified explicitly. The purpose of the study was specifically to determine how effective self-management intervention is in terms of preventing catheter-related urinary tract infections, blockages and accidental dislodgement. A secondary purpose was also identified, namely the quality of care associated with infection, blockage and accidental dislodgement as well as the degree of catheter-related quality of life. The research report follows the steps of the research process in a logical...

The links between the research compiled in the literature review and the present study are effectively clear and suitable. It is evident from a gap in the literature that there was a need for this study.
The literature review was also logically organized and offered a balanced critical analysis of the literature. The literature was mostly of recent origin and mainly from primary sources and of an empirical nature. The literature discussed the history of catheter-usage, the problems associated with long-term indwelling catheters, and the use of self-management intervention.

A theoretical framework was not clearly identified as guiding the study and no conceptual framework was explicitly described. A framework could arguably be determined by examining the nature of the study but the researchers did not specifically identify one themselves. The aim of the study was, however, clearly identified and the research questions were made evident. They were clearly stated and reflected the information presented in the literature review.

The sample was clearly identified. The sample consisted of 202 adult long-term urinary catheter users. The sample was split between a control group which received usual care and the test group which received the self-management intervention. The sample was selected by using baseline data from hospital patient records and participants were contacted to be participants in the study. The sample was probable and the method was a randomized clinical trial. The sample size was suitable for early stage research but for more extensive research, a larger sample will be needed in the future. Inclusion/exclusion criteria was based on baseline data.

Ethical considerations were also not clearly defined, so it is unknown whether or not the participants were fully informed about the nature of the research. It is assumed that autonomy and confidentiality was guaranteed since there is no depiction of individual participants in an identifiable way; however, this guarantee is not stated in the text. Likewise, it is not known if the participants were protected from harm; the results of the intervention are described and this is the only mention of outcomes. It is also not stated as to whether ethical permission was granted for…