Chilton, R. and Pires-Yfantouda, R., (2015). Understanding adolescent type 1 diabetes self-management as an adaptive process: A grounded theory approach. Psychology &health,30(12), pp.1486-1504.

Being able to critically evaluate the robustness of research findings is a core element within the evidence-based practice process (Mackey and Bassendowski, 2017). This evaluation process is best approached with the use of a set framework, or tool, so as to enable a structured and systematic process of appraisal to occur (LoBiondo-Wood and Haber, 2017). This process will be enacted within this current essay, which will seek to critically evaluate the conduct, reporting and findings of a specific primary research study. The work that will be examined is that of Chilton and Pires-Yfantouda (2015), and the paper entitled ‘Understanding adolescent type 1 diabetes self-management as an adaptive process: A grounded theory approach’. This is a study of interest because self-management of diabetes is such a major part of the long-term care trajectory for these individuals (McCarthy and Grey, 2018), and a qualitative investigation into this area may potentially provide a rich and deep insight into the experiences of patients, which may have valuable clinical utility. In order to appraise this paper, Caldwell’s framework for critiquing health research (Caldwell, Henshaw and Taylor, 2005) will be utilised. This approach is widely used and respected in the field of critical appraisal (Dale, Hallas and Spratling, 2019), and enables both quantitative and qualitative studies to be approached in the same systematic manner (Cadlwell et al., 2005). This essay shall first seek to evaluate the work of Chilton and Pires-Yfantouda (2015), before seeking to analyse the findings within the context of application to practice. A brief concluding summary at the end of this essay will provide an overview of the key points raised herein.

As figure 1 in the appendix shows, the approach taken within Caldwell et al.’s (2005) framework is comprehensive and covers a wide variety of salient areas. For the purposes of this discussion, however, it would not be possible to focus on all of these points in detail. As a result, this section shall discuss three core areas identified within this approach, whilst the following section shall tackle the issue of the results. The three sections to be discussed in this section are (i) the information gleaned from the title page; (ii) the literature review and rationale for the study; and (iii) the data collection and analysis processes.
First to be discussed is the issue of what can be gained about the study from the title page. Caldwell et al. (2005) ask the critical appraiser to consider the accuracy of the title to the context of the study, whether the abstract effectively reported the core elements of the work, and whether the authors’ backgrounds can tell us anything about the study itself. Relating to the work of Chilton and Pires-Yfantouda (2015), these elements can be appraised as being mixed in nature, yet reflective of a piece of work that is worthy of attention. For example, a quick Scopus search reveals that Pires-Yfantouda had only published – at the time that the 2015 study was published – two previous studies, whilst the lead author, Chilton had only published five studies in the six years prior to this one. Neither of these authors have a strong h-index at the present time – Chilton has an h-index of 5, with Pires-Yfantouda at 4 – and these combined considerations are an issue within Caldwell et al.’s (2005) framework. This is because this work can be deemed not to have been conducted by renowned experts in the field, or individuals with a strong track record of publishing quality work in the past. However, although this is an issue, it should be acknowledged that both the title of the work, and the abstract itself, are clear and present an accurate overview of what was done within the course of this study. The only criticism of the abstract is perhaps the lack of identification of the number of themes that were developed through the process of analysis, and what these themes were entitled. On the basis of the above considerations, therefore, it can be concluded that this study is of interest, and potentially well conducted; however, there remain significant caveats and concerns about the pedigree of the authors, and by inference, the work itself.

Type Of Service: Academic paper writing
Type Of assignment: Article critique
Subject: Nursing
Pages/words: 20/5500
Number of sources: 0
Academic Level: Undergraduate
Paper Format: Harvard
Line Spacing: Double
Language style: UK English

Why us

Free features

get started