Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP)
Added on 2021-06-15
12 Pages3192 Words50 Views
Disease and Disorders
|
|
|
CASP 1CASPStudent By (Name)Professor’s (Name)CollegeCourse Date
CASP 2IntroductionCritical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) is a set of tools that are used by a researcher whenreading research like randomized controlled trials, systematic review, cohort studies and case-control studies and clinical prediction rule to access the article for its relevance and credibility ofthe articles. CASP is a valid tool to access the quality of data to be included in reviews since it iseasy to use (Munn Moola, Riitano, and Lisy 2014). In my case, I am going to use randomizedcontrol trial study design which is a type of experimental design where people are randomlysampled to receive a new treatment or a monitored treatment.PART 11: My PICOT question was a quantitative type of question “Is skin to skin contact Moreeffective than conventional incubator to prevent hypothermia? In this question my problem (P)was infant, my intervention (I) was skin to skin contact and my comparison(C) was convectionalincubator, lastly my outcome was (O) stabilization low weight.In doing my research I used key search terms mostly derived from my PIOT questionssuch as ‘effects of incubator’, ‘skin to skin benefit’, ‘infant weight’ and ‘comparison betweenincubator and skin contact’, during the search I restricted my date range from 2000 to have a vastamount of information.My article evidence was: The Randomized controlled trial of skin-to-skin contact frombirth versus conventional incubator for physiological stabilization in 1200- to 2199-gramnewborns.
CASP 3The trial was carried out in two tertiary institutions in South Arica at Cape Town whichtreats both public and indigent patients, the mortality rate in this region was 30/1000 and thesurvival rate of an inborn was during the study approximately ninety percent, this study led toidentifying women who were likely to give birth to underweight or premature babies who wouldwish by their consent for their babies to undergo incubation, mothers were not involved if theywere delivering outside the unit or if they had HIV or if they would give their children up foradoption (Munn, Moola, Riitano and Lisy, 2014).This study answered my question which was primarily to determine to compare babieswho underwent incubation versus those who underwent skin to skin contact by their parent; inthat out of the 34 infants who were analyzed those who were above the stability scale were 3/18compared to 12/13 representing those in the incubator, this means that more of the subjects in theincubator were below the stability scale This study was carried for unborn babies of weightbetween 1200 and 2199 grams who were randomly chosen by the use of a computer used systemin the trial hence population(P) this baby was catered for in terms of their physical and emotionalneeds thus intervention(I), they were being compared to those who were not in the incubatorwhose mothers were able to raise up naturally hence comparison(C) the outcome was quiet clearthat subjects under the incubator had some problems as compared to those who weren’t whichlead to I evaluating the impact of skin it skin and use of incubators in their respective applicationareas hence the outcome(O).There was a six-hour observation period where physiological andrespiratory score were recorded in two hospitals at Cape town South Africa the age bracket wasconstant for the subjects.
CASP 42:The assignment of patients to treatment was random where the potential subjects wereidentified before birth by determining the likelihood of the baby being underweight and thenmarking them as potential subject after which a computer minimization process is used beforebirth to narrow down the number of the subjects, even though the computer allocation sequencewas formulated by the researchers the exact patients likely to be chosen are not known orpredictable from the allocation sequence system, the researchers do not know who the likelysubject Is from the pool, however I was not told the considerations that were used by the systemin making the randomized selection out of the pool provided.3: The conclusion touched on both the patients and the nurse and further went on to thetwo categories of subjects being referred to, it concludes by clearly stating that newborn care ismore beneficial in perspective of physiological outcome and stability of the infant emphasizingon the need of mother’s skin to skin contact and not being separated from their kids (Bergman,Linley and Fawcus 2004.). This conclusion, therefore, comes at the correct time in that in thatsince the conclusion has already met its goal which was a comparison between the subjects at theincubator and those in their mother’s womb and accurate findings noted there is a need for theend.4: The patients were blind to the treatment since they are still infants and do notrecognize the process at that time but their parents were aware and informed of the incubationprocess and they gave their consent. The researchers and the health workers and the studypersonnel were aware of the study. The health workers (nurses ) were recruited In a period ofapproximately four years and they were trained on the whole process which could have entailed;how to do the observation ,how to do the recording during the study and they are the ones who
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.