Critique of Causey and Greenwauld's colorectal cancer prevention awareness study

¶ … Promoting community awareness of the need for colorectal cancer prevention and screening," which was written by Causey and Greenwauld, is appropriate. It clarifies the purpose of the research study on which this article is based and provides an effective summary of the particular area of nursing and science that the authors are writing about. Nonetheless, it does not allude to the key variables that influence the study, its results, nor the particular model it utilizes, which is reflective of the principle area in which a sufficient title could be improved.

The abstract for the aforementioned paper is extremely effective. In a paragraph of just a few sentences, the authors are able to identify the key factors related to this study: the problem, the methods and the model used to gather data, the results and the conclusion gathered from those results. The writing is relatively terse and straightforward, and is bolstered by relevant statistics that help emphasize the nature of the research problem. In clearly identifying the research problem, the abstract certainly alludes to the basis for the conducting of original research to help address the issue of combating the instance of colorectal cancer (CRC) through education and preventative measures.

INTRODUCTION

Although the statement of the problem is delivered unambiguously, it is not necessarily easy to find due to the unusual way in which this article is structured. The authors allude to the problem in general terms in the introductory paragraph of the article, but the problem statement is not fully made until the third page, after the authors have given a somewhat convoluted literature review which also functions as an overview of some of the most relevant factors related to this particular malady (CRC). Still, the labeling of the section of the paper entitled "The Problem" (Causey and Greenwauld, 2011, p. 36) helps to identify the statement. The problem statement itself is not as convincing as the aforementioned, lengthy literature review/CRC overview section is regarding the argument for the new study -- although various aspects of this section maunders for nearly three pages. Still, the argument for the new study is made and suffices, although the significance for nursing is merely implied (and is actually explicitly stated on the first page of the article) (Causey and Greenwauld, 2011, p. 34). Although a quantitative study is appropriate for this research, the authors could have easily used a qualitative one as well and merely conducted interviews. To the author's credit, they employed the Health Belief Model (HBM) which was explicitly created to advance notions of testing for health to the public. As such, it was extremely appropriate to address the problem of increasing awareness of prevention for CRC.

HYPOTHESIS OR RESEARCH QUESTION

There is no explicit hypothesis or research question in this article. However, the authors stated the purpose of the study which is suggestive of a research question. The purpose is to determine the efficacy of the HBM in bolstering awareness of CRC prevention (Causey and Greenwauld, 2011, p. 36). Thus, the purpose of the study is aligned with the conceptual framework and the literature review in the article, although there is no reference to the variables or to the population setting used. This information is included in the methods section.

CONCEPTUAL/THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The authors actually define a number of key concepts related to their research problem, including an explanation of the malady and various reasons for why it is prevalent and how its rate of incidence can be reduced. However, there is not necessarily a theoretical framework, rationale or map that is part of this article. One may argue that the absence of one is justified since the study itself and the research question is fairly basic. The authors simply want to know if a particular model they have chosen will help increase awareness of a condition.

RESULTS

The research question was answered by the data and revealed that the educational session did increase the willingness of participants to learn about and prevent CRC. The study conducted a survey both before and after pertaining to several facets of CRC knowledge and prevention; thus, appropriate statistical methods were used to compare this information. This was not an intervention study, and Type I and Type II errors were avoided. The authors summarized the findings well with tables that clearly indicate them, which helps to facilitate evidence-based practice and meta-analysis.

DISCUSSION

The findings were discussed and compared with the findings of a similar study conducted by one of the authors in 2006. This fact served to reinforce the reality that the data proved that education does facilitate increased awareness and knowledge of prevention of CRC -- which is consistent with the study's limitations and its results. More importantly, the authors discuss the fact that the implications of this study are that a longitudinal study could gauge the correlation between awareness over lengthy periods of time and measure the efficacy of such awareness and the proper implementation of preventive measures.

METHODS

The study helped to ensure the safety of its participants and to lessen risk and increase the boons of the study in a couple of different ways. Permission was obtained from the centers where the population sample came from; the subjects participated at their own volition. Additionally, "institutional review board approval" (Causey and Greenwauld, 2011, p. 36) was issued to the authors.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The research design for the study was thorough, and primarily involved detailed information presented about CRC in the hour-long information session that utilized a combination of audio, visual, and verbal information. Still, these materials stemmed from a study by one of the authors conducted five years earlier, which suggests the design could have been improved and incorporated truly original materials for education. The data collection point numbers were appropriate to address the six aspects of the HBM and relevant demographic information. There were several comparisons made between the results of this study and the aforementioned study (from five years prior) that bolstered the interpretation of the results. Other than identifying n, the authors did not disclose their statistical methodology and did not minimize threat to validity or bias.

POPULATION AND SAMPLE

The population and sample facets of the study should have been improved. The authors did not identify the sample by state, nor the specific organizations from which these people came. Although the sample size was adequate, there were several points of homogeneity such as the fact that that majority of the participants were Caucasian women with physicians (Causey and Greenwauld, 2011, p. 38). The dearth of discussion of statistical procedures implies that a power analysis was not employed and that sample biases might have been prevalent.

DATA COLLECTION AND MEASUREMENT

The data collection process was sufficient for this study. In addition to collecting demographic information, the researchers utilized a survey instrument based on a five-point Likert scale that addressed the components of the HBM. This fact ensured that the data were mostly reliable and valid, despite lack of detail about the statistics used.

PROCEDURES

There really was no intervention in this study, other than the educational session that all of the participants received. Nonetheless, the data collection method was not biased and the authors seemed appropriately trained to collect this data.

GLOBAL ISSUES

Other than the unusual way in which the paper was structured in which the literature review combined various aspects of a general overview of CRC (some of which was not germane to the research question) this document was well written presented in an accessible manner to nurses. Since one of the researchers had done a previous study on a topic closely related to this subject, the credibility of the authors was not dubitable and was enhanced by their professional and academic credentials. The validity of the study findings is also considerably compromised by the fact that the researchers "knew" (Causey and Greenwauld. 2011, p. 39) a percentage of the participants. Still, the study does function as a launching point for future research in this area as it specifically applies to nurses and educating the population regarding CRC.